29121949  Text of the Speech made by Mr. Malik (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 458 held on 29 December 1949

 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Malik (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 458 held on 29 December 1949

Without touching upon the substance of the dispute between India and Pakistan or upon the nature of the Presi dent's proposals, which, quite obviously, can best be judged by the parties concerned, I should like to speak on some points of procedure. I would emphasise that the best course would be for the parties themselves to judge the nature of the President's proposals, since the position of those who assiduously praise those proposals, regardless of their nature and without taking the trouble to hear first, in the Security Council, the view of the parties interested in those proposals, is somewhat anomalous. The impression might be created that certain parties are trying to force those proposals upon certain others. The views of the parties to the dispute are not merely of secondary importance to the Security Council.

As regards the procedural aspect of the issue, the USSR delegation wishes to draw attention to points 4 and 5 of General McNaughton's proposals, which provide that the mediator shall be appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, while the plebiscite administrator in Kashmir shall be appointed and shall take up his duties in accordance with the resolution of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 5 January 1949.

The USSR delegation considers such a procedure to be inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, the rules. of procedure and established practice. The question of Kashmir is before the Security Council; therefore, the letter and the Security Council, as the organ mainly responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, should itself appoint the appropriate subsidiary organs for mediation, arbitration, or the carrying out of any other measures for the settlement of a given dispute. The Security Council should not transfer or relegate those functions to any other organ of the United Nations, including the Secretary General.

Similarly, it is of course impossible to endorse the decision adopted in this matter by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 5 January 1949. The Commission obviously exceeded its powers by deciding that the Secretary General should appoint a plebiscite administrator. Such action is within the competence of the Security Council. The Commission's powers are limited to the submission of recommendations to the Security Council; it cannot take the Council's place or assume the functions of an organ having powers of decision.

To sum up, I wish to say that the USSR delegation believes that, should the appointment of a mediator or arbitrator be found expedient in the interests of the peaceful settlement of the dispute, it should be effected directly by the Security Council. As regards the functions and powers of such a mediator or arbitrator they, too, should be determined by the Security Council. It goes without saying that the candidates for the part of mediator or arbitrator and of plebiscite administrator, must be acceptable to both parties, that is to say, they should be nominated with the consent of both parties.

As regards the proposal made by the representative of Norway today, here, too, considerable difficulties of a procedural nature are involved. We know that, up to the present, the following procedure was observed in the consideration of the question before us, i.e. the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and Jammu: the Security Council heard the views of the parties, and the President of the Council then proceeded acquaint himself with and to study the question in greater detail with the object of submitting any possible concrete proposals to the Council for examination. At the preceding meeting of the Security Council, there was a definite departure from this generally accepted and established procedure. The President was entrusted with the holding of discussions with the parties, without so much as hearing their views. Experience shows that one faulty step often leads to another; the wrong course, once chosen, will be pursued.

The meaning of the suggestion made today by the representative of Norway is that the present President of the Security Council, the Canadian representative, will be charged with carrying out the function of the President when he no longer will be President, in obvious disregard of the fact that after 1 January 1950 Canada will no longer be a member of the Security Council. The Norwegian representative has therefore suggested something for which there is no precedent that the Security Council should empower the representative of a country which in a few days will retire from the Security Council to continue to exercise functions which no longer pertain to him, that is to say, functions which in this matter have heretofore been performed by the President of the Security Council. This would surely be an unprecedented situation. Indeed, the Council would be placing the Canadian representative in an embarrassing, not position. to say, delicate,

Such a state of affairs would be an innovation, not provided for either in the Charter or in the rules of procedure, and inconsistent with the methods of work of the Security Council.

Until now the Charter has recognized two categories of members of the Security Council, permanent and non permanent. The Norwegian representative is in fact asking the Council to establish a new and third kind of membership: an extended membership, as it were. He is actually suggesting that the powers of the Canadian representative should be extended beyond 1 January 1950, so as to permit him to handle the affairs of the Security Council not only after the expiration of the term of his powers as President of the Security Council, but also after the country he represents will have ceased to be a member of the Council. This would naturally be putting the Canadian representative in an extremely delicate position, to say nothing of the fact that it would be acting in contravention of the Charter, the rules of

procedure, and the accepted practice.

Consequently, the USSR delegation can see no grounds for supporting the suggestion of the Norwegian representative. I would remark that lately there have been too many violations of the Charter and of the rules of procedure both in the sessions of the General Assembly and in other organs of the United Nations. The USSR delegation does not wish to be a party to yet another violation. Those who have the interest of the United Nations at heart and who respect the Charter and the rules of procedure will certainly be unable to support such a suggestion. The decision, of course, rests with the majority, which is free to decide one way or the other. Nevertheless, no matter what decision the majority takes,

the Security Council cannot consider it as forming a precedent. Such are the brief remarks on procedure which the delegation of the Soviet Union wished to make at the present stage of the discussion.