26051948  Text of the Speech made by Mr. Austin (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 304 held on 26 May, 1948

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Austin (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 304 held on 26 May, 1948

The delegation of the United States supports the proposal made by the President of the Security Council at the opening of this meeting. This proposal, if we understand it correctly, is that the Commission should act according to paragraph D of the resolution of 20 January 1948 [document S/654, which reads as follows:

"D. The Commission shall perform the functions described in clause C: (1) in regard to the situation in the Jammu and Kashmir State set out in the letter, dated 1 January 1948, from the representative of India addressed to the President of the Security Council, and in the letter, dated 15 January 1948 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General; and (2) in regard to other situations set out in the letter, dated 15 January 1948, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, when the Security Council so directs."

This would be with the understanding that the Security Council Commission would concentrate its efforts initially on the Kashmir issue, taking up the Junagadh question at its discretion.

I listened with great interest to the remarks of the representative of Argentina. I must say that, for the time being, we feel persuaded that some investigation should be made by the Security Council's Committee of Experts with reference to the general situation which has been disclosed by the experience of the Security Council in this India Pakistan case, and in other cases as well. We have noticed that there is apparently no sense of obligation on the part of the parties to the case. The parties come to this great United Nations under the very generous spiritual terms of the Charter. The Charter invites all the world to bring its difficulties and disputes to this international Organization.. The parties come here and engage the very expensive machinery of the United Nations and the time of distinguished men from all over the world, and there does not seem to be much sense of obligation to give respect and due regard to the judgement arrived at.

I notice that the Charter in Article 35, paragraph 2, mentions an obligation. It is related to the privilege that is granted to a State not a Member of the United Nations "...bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter."

It might be very helpful if this Committee of experts would examine what was meant by that. What was the obligation of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter? Neither party that has come before the Security Council seems ready to admit that there is any obligation whatsoever. In fact, the recommendations of the Security Council in this case were made because the parties came to the Security Council and represented that if this dispute were allowed to continue without the intervention of the United Nations, it might lead to a threat to the peace and a breach of the peace. That is the foundation on which the Security Council acted.

For four months following that, we heard the parties on both sides and diligently tried to get them to arrive at a solution by negotiation but they could not do it. They barely yielded from the original trading position that they took at the beginning of these negotiations. Finally, they called upon the Security Council to make recommendations; both parties asked the Security Council to do that. And the Security Council passed a resolution, to many of the most important articles which we are now told they will not assent, but which they will resist. That is an absurd position for the United Nations to be in.

Are there no obligations under Chapter VI, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" ? If there are not, to what does this. refer? In Article 35, paragraph 2, it says "...if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter".

I am very interested in what the representative of Argentina has proposed here, and I shall examine the specific terms of his proposal with great attention because I think that we have learned from our three years' experience here that there are certain matters relating to the interpretation of Chapter VI that need to be clarified and explained to the world, so that in this benevolent work of ours, in which the whole world is free to air its disputes and grievances, we may have some method of effective collaboration under the pacific methods of dispute Parties sit at this table with almost unlimited privileges, having all the privileges of any Member save that of voting; they engage in prolonged representations; they engage in vis-a-vis debate against each other here in the Security Council; they have the opportunity to debate particular specific provisions of a resolution when we are at work upon an undertaking that is peculiarly up to the Security Council then when it comes to the performance or execution of the terms of a resolution, they say they will not consider it.

There is something exceedingly wrong about that. It is not only morally wrong, but I think that it is not in conformity with the spirit of the Charter and that the time has come when the Security Council should get out an interpretation of what are the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter and when it should lay them down, so that in some such manner, in recognition of some of the cost, the parties will assume an obligation in advance to abide by the decision that is arrived at through this Chapter of the Charter. If parties come here and both of them call upon the Security Council to make recommendations for the solution of their dispute, ought they not in advance agree to abide by it ? They are not bound to ask the Security Council to make such recommendations, but if they do, I ask the Committee of Experts if they have not thereby implied that they will conform or try to conform to them.

This situation is a serious one affecting the foundations of the world and of this great United Nations, and I shall consequently examine with great interest the proposal, when it comes, of the representative of Argentina But, for the time being, the United States delegation favours the proposal made by the President for reference of all these matters to the Commission with the understanding that the Kashmir matter has priority and that the other matters shall be taken up at its discretion.