26051948 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Tsiang (China) in the Security Council Meeting No. 304 held on 26 May, 1948

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Tsiang (China) in the Security Council Meeting No. 304 held on 26 May, 1948

During an early part of the Security Council's discussion with regard to this question-back in the month of February -my delegation suggested that it might be better for the Security Council to adopt a number of general principles, leaving the details to be worked out on the spot by the Security Council Commission. That suggestion was made because of the consideration that the members of the Security Council did not have all the local knowledge which the solution of the problem required. In the second place, we had one other consideration, namely, that if the members of the Commission were on the spot, they might achieve more through personal relationships than the Security Council could achieve here, at such a distance.

The suggestion of the delegation of China was not adopted by the Security Council, mainly, I think, because we all deferred on that point to the judgement of the delegation of the United Kingdom. Since the delegation of China adopted that standpoint early in the debate, it cannot, of course, object to the Commission going out at this moment.

As I listened to the objections put before the Security Council by the representative of India, I had the feeling that some of them were not of so serious a nature as to prevent our commission from doing good work. I have in mind particularly the objection he raised on the ground of peace and order. It is evident that it is as much in the interest of the Security Council that peace and order should be restored in Kashmir as it is in the interest of India and Pakistan. As I stated before, it certainly would not be the intention of our Commission to make it impossible for peace and order to be restored in Kashmir. The plebiscite itself could not take place unless peace and order were completely attained in that region. Therefore, the objections of the representative of India on that score seem to me to be susceptible to adjustment on the spot.

However, the representative of India raised another objection, namely, that referring to the coalition Cabinet in Kashmir. I felt that this objection was more serious and that it might hamper the activities of our Commission. It is on that ground that I hesitate to urge that the Commission. should proceed at once to India. Without some adjustment on that particular point, I feel that our Commission may not find it possible to do useful work. Again on that point, so far as I am concerned, I am ready to defer to the judgement of the representative of the United Kingdom.

However, if we should agree that the Commission should proceed to India, I feel it would be wise not to refer all of the disputes to that Commission at once. We might allow the Commission to work for some time on the Kashmir question. If due progress is made on that question, then further matters might be referred to the Commission. If the Commission is overloaded at the very beginning, its chance of success even with regard to Kashmir may be diminished.

Without passing judgement on these various questions or their relative importance, we must agree that, once we make some headway with the question of Kashmir, we shall find other questions much easier of solution. In case we meet with a deadlock on Kashmir, then I am afraid success on the other questions will not be easy.