Text of the Speech made by Mr. Parodi (France) in the Security Council Meeting No. 269 held on 18 March, 1948

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Parodi (France) in the Security Council Meeting No. 269 held on 18 March, 1948

I had not intended to speak tonight. The document which you have placed before us certainly calls for further consideration. I think however that it may be useful to make, at once, two observations which have some bearing on the course of our later work.

First of all, I wish to join Mr. Noel Baker in expressing our thanks to the President for the work which he has accomplished. I believe that it is on the whole very helpful to the study which we make of any question, if the President, or the Rapporteur-and in the present instance he has been so good as to perform both these functions-initiates certain hearings and prepares the ground for the work of the Council.

As the representative of Colombia reminded us a moment ago, we have at present before us a whole series of draft resolutions. In my opinion, these draft resolutions do not differ greatly. At the first reading, at any rate, they all seem to be in the same spirit, and I personally think that the President's draft resolution represents, in a sense, a kind of synthesis or extension of all the draft resolutions already submitted I venture to hope that when we resume discussion of the question we shall be able to carry on our work with a condensation of these draft resolutions; and that these draft resolutions will be brought more closely together, in order that any differences which may still exist between them may be expressed in the form of amendments rather than separate. proposals.

I now wish to make a remark on the substance of the question. In this discussion there is a fundamental point, and what disagreement exists would seem to me to relate to that point. This is the question of the presence of Indian troops in Kashmir during the period of the plebiscite. I can understand the anxiety which the representative of Pakistan may feel, and I realise that it would be desirable and preferable if we were in a position to call upon another authority able to provide us with a full guarantee that the plebiscite will take place under perfect conditions. But I do not see any practical possibility of finding another force to replace the armed force which is already in Kashmir.

Moreover, these are territories which have been devastated in a most deplorable manner, resulting in the loss of human lives and vast material destruction; the violence is in part the result of a tribal invasion, and in part due to the intrusion of external forces. It is difficult to conceive that the restoration of order and peace has so stabilised the situation as to have dispelled all fear of any resumption of violence. I do not think, therefore, that the Security Council can venture to say that at any given moment this territory should be deprived of the forces which are at present capable of maintaining public order.

Another point which has been raised is the presence of an Indian administration, or at least an administration which is said not to be completely neutral and impartial. Here also. There are vital needs to be considered, namely the maintenance of order, the government and the life of the country. If we take into consideration the plebiscites of the past, wherever they may have been held, I have no knowledge that it was ever said that these plebiscites should be held in areas previously emptied of any kind of force capable of maintaining order, or of any kind of government. Experience proves that, subject to guarantees which can be easily imagined-impartial and satisfactory plebiscites can be organised in countries containing administrative machinery and providing the necessary guarantees for public order.

I wanted to state at once my opinion on this point, because I think that our further deliberations and attempts to bring the two parties together should tend in this direction; we should search for guarantees to ensure the impartially of the plebiscite despite the presence of Indian troops, rather than seek a solution which seems to me impossible of realisation and which would deprive this troubled land of any kind of force capable of maintaining order.

If I understood him correctly, the representative of India would not object to a study in this sense, or to the search, if necessary, for other guarantees, or to new and more precise provisions regarding the guarantees already mentioned in the text before us. Two types of guarantees are provided in this document: the progressive reduction of troops and their cantonment, the manner in which they are to be stationed.

At the first regarding it would appear that the proposed text should be rendered more precise on one point; in my opinion, a more precise provision should be added to the effect that the administration responsible for ensuring independence and impartiality of the plebiscite should be empowered to negotiate with the authorities concerned; and this administration should at least be able to give its views and to inform us concerning the number of Indian troops and the manner in which they are stationed, to enable us to verify whether all the guarantees I have suggested have been furnished.

It is in this direction that our work should be continued; and in my opinion this is a practical procedure. It is for this reason that I desired to make these suggestions which I consider useful at the present stage of our work, despite the late hour and the fact that I reserve the right to re-examine the document and supplement these observations.