29121949  Text of the Speech made by the President General Me Naughton (Canada) in the Security Council Meeting No. 458 held on 29 December, 1949

 Text of the Speech made by the President General Me Naughton (Canada) in the Security Council Meeting No. 458 held on 29 December, 1949

The Council will recall that at our last two meetings it was agreed to employ simultaneous interpretation for all statements made by members of the Council and by other representatives and to use consecutive interpretation only for procedural matters and when we came to a vote on any draft resolution which might be submitted to the Council. I think that normally this is a very useful procedure which we have come to adopt. But the situation with which the Council is faced today is unfortunately not normal, and I think that in consequence some modification would be advisable. The difficulty is that, over the last few days, telegraph and telephone communication with the capitals of India and Pakistan have proved difficult and there have been delays in the transmission and receipt of important messages. The result is that, despite every endeavour by all concerned, I have not been able to place myself in a position to distribute a report on these negotiations in advance of this meeting. Moreover, I should like to emphasise both the importance and the delicacy of the negotiations which have been. undertaken during the past fortnight on behalf of the Council. My statement and the discussion which follows it in the Council should therefore, in any opinion, be given the facility of consecutive interpretation, in order that all members may have the best opportunity we can provide for consideration of the matter. I therefore suggest that, during this meeting of the Council, we should adopt the system of consecutive interpretation for all statements made by members of the Council.

As there is no objection to that procedure, I shall consider it adopted.

I should like now to make a brief statement as President, reporting on my consultations with the representatives of India and of Pakistan. The Security Council will recall that at our 457th meeting, held on 17 December 1949, the representative of

Norway introduced a proposal that "the President should meet informally with the two parties and examine with them the possibility of finding a mutually satisfactory basis for dealing with the Kashmir problem". This proposal was adopted by the Council by a vote of 9 in favour with 2 abstentions. I therefore undertook to accept the responsibility assigned to me, and thereafter to call the Council together as soon as I had anything to report which might merit consideration.

Pursuant to this decision of the Security Council, I have, since 17 December, held frequent meetings with the representatives of India and of Pakistan individually, in a very serious endeavour to find a basis for a solution of the difficult question with which we are faced. I have also had the benefit of a meeting held on 20 December with the members of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan; with Mr. Colban, who has been with the Commission as the personal representative of the Secretary-General; with General Delvoie, Military Adviser to the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, and with Mr. Marin, the Commission's legal advisor.

During the course of my meetings with the representatives of India and of Pakistan, and at their request, I undertook to formulate a proposal for submission in writing to the parties for consideration by their respective Governments. The various clauses of this proposal were put through a process of prolonged and detailed preliminary discussion with the parties in the draft stage. I submitted the proposal to the two parties on Thursday, 22 December, and a copy of it has been distributed to members of this Council.

I have naturally had to study many aspects of the problem, and, in my proposal, I have sought to take as basic the practical task of bringing about conditions in which the plebiscite could be held. The proposal is based firmly on the principle originally offered unilaterally by the Government of India in a far-seeing and statesmanlike declaration and, since then, accepted and re-affirmed repeatedly by both parties : that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be determined by the freely expressed will of its people. I have therefore endeavoured, in so far as possible, to concentrate on developing, through the application of common sense and agreement, a basis for a practical and expeditious solution of this question by a plebiscite. I have intentionally avoided attempting to analyse or pronounce judgement on the rights and wrongs in the disputed issues of the past few years, except in so far as these matters need to be taken into considerations for the specific purpose of bringing about a settlement. In my judgement, a legalistic and historical approach to the matter would require the examination of a complex mass of detail, the relevance of which to arranging an early plebiscite seems at the least to be doubtful. It is my hope that the general method of approach by seeking to concentrate on the development of acceptable arrangements for the future, rather than pronouncing upon issues raised in the past, will commend itself to the members of the Security Council. Certainly, it seems to me the most hopeful course to follow, because, to a large and important extent, this method of approach does not require us to choose between conflicting interpretations of what has happened.

In my meetings with the representatives of the two parties, it was confirmed that, in so far as the establishment of conditions under which, in the language of part III of the resolution of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August 1948 [S/1100 paragraph 75], "...the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people" was concerned, the three main points of disagreement put forward by the respective parties concerned: first, the Azad forces; secondly, the question of demilitarisation; and thirdly, the Northern Area.

In the meetings which followed, after traversing the whole field of the problem I came to the view that the general plans advanced by our Commission in accordance with the Security Council's directions were appropriate to the situation. The difficulty, however, was that in one very essential part or stage of these plans the necessary agreement by the Government of India and Pakistan had not been secured, and there was therefore a block in carrying these plans into effect. The problem, therefore, was not one of formulating and putting forward a wholly new proposal, but rather of taking that part of the existing plan in connexion with which difficulties had arisen and finding ways and means, here and now, of resolving these difficulties so that the matter might go forward with the minimum change in organisation or in procedure.

In thus attempting to isolate the area where agreement was lacking. I reached the conclusion that it concerned essentially the various stages of demilitarisation which should take place during the period prior to the plebiscite. In my meetings with the parties, I came increasingly to believe that, if the question of demilitarisation prior to the plebiscite could be treated as a unified whole, a basis for agreement might well be developed. Accordingly, the proposal I have advanced is designed to remove the block by providing the basis for an agreed programme of demilitarisation, to take place before the plebiscite is held. I should like again to emphasize that the proposals I have submitted relate specifically to this period prior to the plebiscite, and that they do not purport in any way to supersede the functions of the Plebiscite Administrator, as set forth in our Commission's resolution of 5 January 1949 [S/1196). The powers therein assigned to the Plebiscite Administrator would of course remain in full force and effect. Indeed, the object of my proposal is to advance the time when the Plebiscite Administrator will take up his duties in Kashmir and carry them through to a conclusion.

During the course of my discussions, the most detailed examination has been given to the questions of the Azad forces, the Northern Area, the security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the maintenance of law and order, the necessity for safeguarding the free expression of public opinion in the State, and to other similar important points which have been the subject of long previous debate between the two parties. The detailed examination of these points reinforced my view that the question of demilitarisation prior to the plebiscite must be considered as a whole and that, if the parties could agree on a programme of progressive demilitarisation, the essential requirement leading to conditions requisite to a free and impartial plebiscite would have been established and the way would be open for the Plebiscite. Administrator to discharge the functions which have already been entrusted to him. The provisions contained in my proposal do, in my judgement, provide the basis for a fair and equitable programme of demilitarisation which would legitimate the interests of both parties.

I should like to emphasise that in this proposal, as in many similar cases, it is not to be expected that all its provisions would be agreeable to both parties. Yet the solution of the Kashmir dispute depends, in my opinion, essentially on a spirit of adjustment, and it was in this view that my proposal was put forward.

The task of drafting a proposal of this nature has not been an easy one, and I have had to call on the close and continued attention of the parties as well as of the staff which has helped me in this work. Every word of this proposal has been examined with great care and discussed during the drafting stage with the respective parties. Its provisions were repeatedly re-drafted in an effort to obtain the maximum degree of equity and acceptability to both sides. I am sure that the necessity for this procedure, time-consuming as it has been, will be apparent to members of the Security Council and I hope, therefore, that my colleagues will not think that I have imposed unduly on their patience.

I had intended, with the full assent of the representatives of India and of Pakistan, that the procedure to be followed thereafter would be that, once definite comments or suggestions for amendment to my proposal had reached me from both India and from Pakistan, I would arrange for the simultaneous interchange of their comments. Each party would thus be in possession of the explicit views of the other side. I had then intended to see their representatives separately with a view to endeavouring to narrow the differences, in so far as might be possible, in discussions with them. It would be, I thought, by this process that agreements on matters of substance would be incorporated into the proposal. The text would also be subject to drafting changes which might be required to ensure that the intent had been correctly reflected in its terms.

Unfortunately, the difficulties of communication with the Sub-Continent, to which I have previously referred, have resulted in delay in the receipt of the texts of the two replies. One I received yesterday and the other only today. The process of interchange will therefore not be completed until later on today, after this meeting. Moreover, I believe that in. this present stage of negotiation it is certainly advantageous to give the parties adequate time for consideration of all aspects of each other's suggested amendments before requiring them to take up public positions from which it might be difficult to recede.

What is now required, I think, is that the parties should proceed with their negotiations under whatever auspices they or the Council may desire. For this purpose the proposal which have been put forward, and the amendments which have been submitted, will serve as an appropriate basis from which, I hope, in due course, agreement may be reached.

I believe that my statement reflects accurately the principles which have guided me in the preparation of the proposals which I have submitted to the parties. I should like to conclude by expressing my very deep sense of appreciation to the representatives of India and Pakistan for the courteous attention which they have, one and all, given to me in the conduct of these discussions, and for the great care they have taken in providing me, as promptly as was possible, with all the information which I felt I required.