21031951 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Gladwyn Jebb (United Kingdom) in the Security Council Meeting No. 537 held on 21 March, 1951

 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Gladwyn Jebb (United Kingdom) in the Security Council Meeting No. 537 held on 21 March, 1951

 

Members of the Council have heard in the statements which my two Commonwealth colleagues have made at our recent meetings a detailed and lucid exposition of the points of view of the Governments of India and Pakistan on the matter before us. We are indebted to the two representatives for the thoroughness with which they have analysed this complex problem. One thing at least can be said about the Kashmir case, and that is that no other case which has come before the Security Council has ever been presented by both sides with such commanding ability.

 

I do not now intend, however, to ask the Council to weigh the relative merits of the many arguments which have been advanced by the two representatives. It will be remembered that, in the statement which I made [532nd meeting] when my United States colleague and I introduced our joint draft resolution [S/2017], I expressed my belief that, in spite of the many points of detail which have emerged during the long negotiations, the broad issues which the Council must consider, and on which we should endeavour to persuade the parties to concentrate their attention, are relatively simple. The broad issues, I repeat, are relatively simple. Nothing which my two colleagues from India and Pakistan have said during their statements has changed this belief. Indeed as I listened to the views which they put forward, it was brought home. to me even more forcibly that, in spite of their many differences on this question, their agreement to decide the future accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by a fair and impartial plebiscite conducted under United Nations auspices, and their agreement to the specific proposals for holding the plebiscite contained in the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 [S/1100, S/1196] completely overshadow the significance of their disagreements on points of detail. The picture which their statements built in my mind was one of the clearly defined objectives which both parties are equally anxious to reach and of certain obstacles in the path leading to this objective, the best way of surmounting which is still in dispute between them. I am sure the Council will agree with me that we must do our utmost to concentrate the attention of the parties on the objective and to persuade them, if, we can, of the futility of allowing these obstacles to prevent them from attaining it. This must be the plain duty of all those not themselves involved in the dispute and, in particular, I suggest, of all members of the Security Council.

 

I shall not deal in detail, therefore, with the many arguments which have been advanced and I shall ask the Council to consider only those arguments which have a direct bearing on how the two agreed resolutions of the Commission can be put into effect. I shall return to these in a moment.

 

But first, I should like to remind the Council that, in the statement which I made when introducing the resolution which my United States colleague and I jointly co-sponsored, I said:

 

"I wish to emphasise from the outset that the sub mission of this draft resolution is not intended in any way to pre-judge the Council is deliberations or the views which the Indian and Pakistan representative will no doubt put forward. It seemed to my Government, however, that it might be helpful for the Council to have a draft resolution before it is a basis for discussion...".

 

As a result of the views expressed by my two colleagues from India and Pakistan, and also as a result of private consultations which have been held with them, a modified joint draft resolution has now been drawn up by the United States and United Kingdom Governments. This has been circulated as document S/2017/Rev. 1, and copies of it are now before members of the Council.

 

The Council will be aware that the representative of Brazil has recently made determined and, indeed, most welcome efforts to bridge the difference between the two parties. I hope that he himself will give the Council an account of the proposals which he put forward and the responses which he received I think he will forgive me if I say now that the point which emerged from his negotiations was that the Government of India was unable to accept arbitration in any form as a way of resolving the disagreements regarding the interpretation and application of the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. I believe that, on the other hand, the Government of Pakistan, as was emphasised by my colleague Sir Mohammad Zafrulla Khan in his statement to the Council [534th, 535th meetings], was completely ready to accept any arbitration which the Council thought desirable to resolve these disagreements. That, I think, is the crux of this matter.

 

Members will see that in the modified draft resolution which my United States colleague and I have tabled we have retained provision for arbitration. We have not done this without a great deal of anxious thought, or without weighing carefully all the arguments which were advanced on behalf of the Government of India: we have considered whether arbitration would, as my colleague suggested, threaten the security of India; we have considered whether there is any way in which arbitration on the interpretation and application of the agreements, of which both the Government of India and Pakistan have repeatedly affirmed their acceptance, would in any way prejudice the rights or interfere with the proper responsibilities of the Government of India, and I must say to members of the Council that we-for I believe I can associate the representative of the United States in this-have been unable to see how arbitration in the form which we have proposed could in any way act to the detriment of the Government of India's rights and responsibilities. Indeed, in a matter such as this, where an international agreement,

It seems to us to be the only right course to accept arbitration in differences concerning its interpretation and application. My Government was aware, of course, that the Government of India had been unwilling to submit these matters to arbitration by a single individual, and we have, therefore, tried to meet any anxieties which it may have on this score by providing for a panel of arbitrators nominated by the President of the International Court of Justice. We can be satisfied, I am sure, that arbitration in this form would guarantee both parties a completely fair and objective determination of their disagreements arising out of the two resolutions of the Commission. I hope that members of the Council in the statements which they will no doubt be making will feel able to affirm their Governments, support for the use of arbitration in matters like this, and that they will, by voting for the draft resolution, support the co-sponsors in their view that agreement on arbitration is now the obvious and essential step for the Governments of India and Pakistan to take.

 

If members of the Council will now compare the modified draft resolution with the original draft resolution I shall try to explain the considerations which the co-sponsors had in mind in making the various changes. First of all, in the second paragraph of the preamble it will be seen that we have omitted reference to the Security Council resolution of 14 March 1950 [S/1461]. It will be remembered that both parties in their statements insisted that the Council should follow as closely as possible the two agreed Commission resolutions and that, in particular, the representative of India objected to the provision contained in the original joint draft resolution for demilitarisation to carried out on the basis of Sir Owen Dixon's proposals which, in certain respects, went beyond the demilitarisation plan contained in the two agreed resolutions. We have, therefore, tried to meet the views of the two parties by concentrating in our amended draft resolution on ways of giving effect to those two earlier agreed resolutions. That is the only reason for the omission that I have just mentioned.

 

The next amendment is in operative paragraph 3. There again our object has been to meet the objections raised by both parties to the inclusion of provisions which go beyond the two Commission resolutions. We have been glad to meet Sir Benegal Rau's point that demilitarisation must be in accordance with the agreed plan and not in accordance with subsequent modifications of it. I think, however, that it is only right for me to explain to the Council that our amendment here in no way implies that my Government, at any rate, disagrees with the demilitarisation proposals put forward by Sir Owen Dixon and, indeed, I think that my colleague from India was, if I may say so, a little less than fair to Sir Owen in his analysis of these proposals [533rd meeting). But that is a side issue which I need not explore here. The point I wish to emphasise is that the form of demilitarisation referred to in the amended paragraph 3 is precisely that which we understand the Government of India desires to see put into effect.

 

It will also be noticed that we have omitted the sub paragraph 3 (ii) of the original draft resolution. This again has been done because, in a sense, it might be thought to have gone beyond the two agreed Commission resolutions. Since the task of preparing detailed plans for carrying out the plebiscite is the responsibility of the Plebiscite Administrator, we have, therefore, thought it better to omit this provision from the present draft resolution.

 

We have also omitted the whole of paragraph 4. Members of the Council will remember that in presenting the original draft resolution the representative of the United States and I explained how we thought the three possibilities mentioned in this paragraph might help to remove difficulties preventing the settlement of the Kashmir problem. I should not wish to withdraw anything that I said in support, for instance, of a neutral force, the possibility of certain limited boundary adjustments and the idea that the degree of supervision over the plebiscite might suitably be varied from area to area in the State, and although these ideas, as we see, have been left out of the revised draft resolution, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom hopes that the Council and the two parties will continue to have them in mind in case, at some later stage in the negotiations, they should feel that they would, after all, provide the solution to some of the difficulties which we have to resolve. In particular the proposal for a neutral force which certain Member States were prepared to provide still seems to my Government to be a valuable one. I make my Government's view on this point quite clear. I made it quite clear in my initial statement, and I will not say anything further now except to express the hope that the Government of India, should disagreement on the question of demilitarisation continue, will feel able to waive its objections and agree to the replacement of the military forces of all interested parties by some suitable neutral force.

 

The new paragraph 4 of the revised draft resolution is the same as the original paragraph 5, with an omission at the end made necessary by the change in paragraph 3. Paragraph 5 of the revised draft resolution is the same as the original paragraph 6. It will be seen, however, that we have defined more closely the matters which would be submitted to arbitration.

 

As I have said earlier, we regard points of difference in regard to the interpretation and execution of the agreed Commission resolutions to be eminently suitable for determination by this method. Paragraph 6 of the revised draft resolution, again is substantially the same as the corresponding paragraph in the original draft resolution; it has been expanded a little to tie it in more closely with the report which the United Nations representative is required, under paragraph 5, to submit, and the President of the International Court of Justice has been made the authority for appointing the arbitrators instead of the International Court as a whole. It was felt that this was more in accordance with international practice and also a more convenient arrangement. It will also be noticed that the wording at the end has been slightly changed to emphasise that these appointments are to be made after consultation with the parties and that, while the views of the parties will of course be taken into full account, objections by either of them to the arbitrators nominated by the President would not be a bar to their appointment. Those are the differences which we have made in the

 

revised draft resolution. I do not think I need give the Council any further explanation of the reasons which the co-sponsors had in mind in making them. They are all quite straightforward and, I would hope, with make the draft resolution more acceptable to the Governments of India and Pakistan. I should like, however, to say a few words about changes which we have not felt it possible, for instance, to omit provisions for arbitration. I am sure the Council will agree with us on this point. Arbitration is, after all, one of the methods mentioned by the Charter for resolving international disputes and it is, therefore, a method which all Members of the United Nations have in principle already accepted in signing the Charter. All of us know that great efforts have been made both by the United Nations Commission, and subsequently by General McNaughton and Sir Owen Dixon, to find some way of resolving the disagreements between the two parties.

 

All those various representatives of the Security Council have acted as mediators and have had no power to do other than to endeavour by persuasion to negotiate an agreement between the parties. The Government of the United Kingdom feels very strongly that the time is now past when these disagreements can be dealt with in this way. The dispute over the future of Kashmir is not one which time will help to solve. I am afraid that is an all too obvious statement. I need not labour this point, and I hope that the Council will accept the retention of arbitration in the new draft resolution as the most effective way of moving forward towards a settlement. We must hope that if the Council expresses its conviction on this point, the Government of India will find itself able to waive the objections which the representative of India has recently expressed.

 

There remains the question of the Kashmir constituent assembly. It will be seen that the paragraphs in the preamble which deal with this particular point have been retained in the

amended draft resolution. I wish I could say to the Council that we feel satisfied from what the representative of India has said that the Government of Pakistan has no cause for disquiet in respect of the proposed constituent assembly. Indeed, if it had not been for a series of disturbing pronouncements by Sheikh Abdullah and by Ministers of the Government of India and of the Kashmir State Government, the Council would probably have felt that what the representative of India has told the Council was a sufficient guarantee that nothing would be done by the constituent assembly which would in any way prejudice the settlement of the future accession of Kashmir in the manner to which the two Governments and this Council are committed.

 

But when the Council is confronted with a statement by the Prime Minister of the Kashmir State Government that "without caring for the opposition of Pakistan, Britain and America, the proposed constituent assembly for the State will be set up on the due date to decide all big issues, including accession", the view of the Government of India, as stated by its representative, that "while the constituent assembly may, if it so desires, express an opinion on this question, it can take no decision on it", does not hold out any real promise that the Government of India will take all steps possible to prevent the Kashmir State Government from action which must inevitably prejudice the work of the United Nations in settling this dispute. I therefore wish to make a further earnest appeal to the representative of India to make it clear beyond all doubt that his Government will do everything in its power to prevent action which will damage the work of the Council, of which he himself is so distinguished a member.

 

Finally, I wish to deal with one general point which arises out of the statement of the representative of India, and that is the assumption which I detected behind a number of his remarks that the accession of Kashmir has already been settled and that all that remains is for the people of Kashmir to confirm that the State shall remain a part of the Indian Union. I have already referred to the letter to the Maharaja of Kashmir from the Governor-General of India, dated 27 October 19.7, in which he said, "the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State''. I do not think I need draw the attention of members of the Council to the various resolutions which both the Council and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan have from time to time adopted in which the decision that the accession of the State should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite has been constantly re-affirmed. The assumption made by the representative of India that the accession has been settled and that no more remains except to give the inhabitants of the State an opportunity to decide whether they should remain in India or not, in the view of my Government cuts right across the very principles on which the Council and, we have always understood, the two parties also, have been striving to effect a settlement. Of course members of the Council will all share my desire not to read anything into the statement of the representative of India which was not intended, and I am sure we shall all be most reluctant to interpret his statement in a sense which would suggest that the Government of India is in any way abandoning the pledges which it has always so. categorically affirmed.

 

But the combination of the proposal for establishing a constituent assembly with the suggestion that all that is now required is to give the people of Kashmir an opportunity to decide whether they should remain in India or not, will inevitably raise apprehensions in the minds of members of the Council that the Government of India does contemplate a method of ascertaining the wishes of the people on this question of accession which would be wholly inconsistent with the principles to which it, the Government of Pakistan and the Council have all along subscribed. I should therefore like in conclusion to appeal to the representative of India to set at rest any doubts which members of the Council may have on this point, by re-affirming quite explicit and categorically that the Government of India does intend to adhere to its undertaking to settle the future accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. A statement to this effect would, I am sure, be most welcome to the Council; if it could be combined with a more encouraging response to the efforts which the Council has been making for so long to resolve the disagreements between the two Governments, then we should all, I am certain, be greatly heartened.

 

From what I have said it will be observed that in the opinion of my delegation at any rate, we have now come to a turning point. The Security Council, we suggest, must very shortly face the issue, and by passing the revised draft resolution without hesitation, make known its definite attitude as regards this long drawn out dispute. By doing so it would at least make it clear that the United Nations, as well as the two parties, is concerned with one thing and one thing only, which is that wild talk of war on one side or the other must stop and that the solution of this admittedly difficult problem must now be achieved by peaceful means, and indeed essentially by the means laid down in the Charter to which we have all subscribed. This is what we shall be doing if we now adopt the revised draft resolution.