29121949 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Sunde (Norway) in the Security Council Meeting No. 458 held on 29 December 1949
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Sunde (Norway) in the Security Council Meeting No. 458 held on 29 December 1949
Since it was my suggestion which led the Security Council. to impose upon the President the arduous and delicate task of conciliation, I think it is also incumbent upon me to thank him for the untiring and selfless devotion with which he has proceeded with the discharge of his mandate. What I called the "short-cut" in terms of the history of the Kashmir dispute has turned out to be long indeed in terms of the sacrifices which it has entailed for the President. At the time when most people were enjoying a he went about his important task with complete disregard for his personal convenience and in a spirit of whole-hearted devotion to the interests of the community of nations.
His statement today makes it clear to all of us that he has made every effort which was humanly possible in order to clarify the issues involved in the Kashmir dispute and that he has succeeded in defining clearly the areas of disagreement. His proposal for a basis of agreement, in my opinion, cuts. across those remaining areas in a fair and equitable manner. I shall not presume to embark upon a detailed evaluation of that proposal. It can, of course, not be judged entirely on its intrinsic value; the controlling consideration must be its effect upon the life and happiness of the population of the disputed area itself and upon the vital interests of the two great nations. of India and Pakistan. I do not have the knowledge of Jammu and Kashmir or of their tangled history which would make it possible for me to judge the merits of the opposing claims. to the territory. However, the very remoteness of my country from the area in question and the fact that my Government entertains equally friendly relations with both the parties to the dispute, make it possible for me to view the problems with no other interests in mind than those of justice and peace.
Besides the establishment of the cease-fire line, the important fact which stands out greatly to the credit of the Commission and of the parties themselves is that the two Governments have clearly and unequivocally agreed that the future of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined by the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. The only disagreements which remain concern the methods through which the necessary conditions for such a plebiscite could best be assured. To me it would seem tragic if disagreements in regard to these essentially procedural problems should block
the settlement for which we are all hoping. This brings me naturally to the basis of the agreement. which has been suggested by the President and which he has so eloquently and so convincingly presented to us today.
His proposal has the merit of brevity. Even a cursory perusal makes it clear, however, that every word has been carefully weighed and inspired by an earnest and well-advised desire to strike a just and equitable balance between the conflicting interests.
His proposal involves no retreat from the important positions which have so painstakingly been reached by the Commission in agreement with the parties. The resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 remain in force and are modified only on those points that have become outmoded and outpaced by subsequent events. On those parties-I refer especially to the new principles of demilitarisation his suggestions seem eminently fair and just, and the Azad forces in the Northern Area are dealt with clearly and equitably. In all frankness, I must say that I fail to perceive what objections the parties could have to this proposal, which could be reconciled with their common goal of a free and impartial plebiscite.
I should like to beseech the parties with all the urgency at my command to take full account of the fact that this dispute between the two countries is the vital concern of the world at large, and that they have undertaken the solemn obligation under the Charter of the United Nations to settle international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are endangered. not
In conclusion, I should like to suggest that the negotiations between the parties should be continued under the auspices of the President, General McNaughton. Who has already done so much to reconcile their points of view, and of whose insight into and knowledge of the matter full cognizance should be taken. It is my suggestion that the President's mediation should, if necessary, and if he is willing, continue after the expiration of his term as President.