29031951  Text of the Speech made by Mr. Sarper (Turkey) in the Security Council Meeting No. 538 held on 29 March, 1951

 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Sarper (Turkey) in the Security Council Meeting No. 538 held on 29 March, 1951

The history of the India-Pakistan question, which has been on the agenda of the Security Council for over three years, is well known to all of us. In the light of its development through several phases and of the actions taken by the Security Council in each phase, we have given careful thought to the question. We have also listened with great care to the views and explanations submitted to the Council by both parties. In our study of the question and in determining our attitude towards it, we have been guided by certain basic considerations. First of all, we are deeply disturbed and concerned because of the existence of such a dispute between two sister nations, to both of which we are bound by sincere ties of friendship and for both of which we have the greatest admiration. We are further concerned by the fact that such a situation should exist at this particular juncture in world affairs. The gravity of general world conditions is obvious, and it is unnecessary for us to comment upon it at this time.

Amidst these unsettled world conditions it appears to us and we are certain that both parties to the dispute themselves will agree that the primary interest of the two great nations is common, namely, maintenance of peace, security and stability in the sub-continent and in the world as a whole. It is, therefore, essential that every effort should be made in order to find an amicable solution to this problem. The main responsibility here, of course falls upon the parties themselves, and we are sure that they will continue their endeavours until a satisfactory and final solution to this question can be found, bearing in mind the extreme gravity of the general situation.

The present dispute between India and Pakistan over the State of Jammu and Kashmir is a factor of instability in the sub-continent and, as Sir Owen Dixon said in his remarkable report, "Except by agreement between them there is no means of settling it". On the other hand, it is gratifying to note that, as far as principle is concerned, no difference exists between the two parties. Both of them agree that the question of the future of Jammu and Kashmir should be settled in accordance with the will of the people expressed through a fair and impartial plebiscite.

Moreover, in accepting the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, they have further agreed upon the main lines of a course of action to bring about the plebiscite.

Thus, in our view, the scope of the dispute seems to have narrowed down to points on methods and procedures, such as the withdrawal or disbanding of the armed forces at present in the area prior to the holding of the plebiscite, and the control over the administration of the disputed territory during the plebiscite. Since agreement has been reached on principle, we believe that the differing views of the parties on these matters of procedure cannot be irreconcilable. If efforts are continued and redoubled both by the parties themselves and by this Council, which bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, we believe that a solution can be found to this question which will be just and satisfactory to both sides. Such, I am certain, is our common objective.

With these considerations constantly in our mind, we have made a thorough study of the joint draft resolution now before us.

The draft, in its preamble, contains certain observations and certain statements of principle. The first of these is that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided through a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. I have already commented upon this briefly. We are, I think, all agreed that such a plebiscite is the only way to bring about a just solution to the question of Jammu and Kashmir. Once we have accepted this principle, we must also admit that such measures as convening a constituent assembly which will not be representative of the whole territory, in order to decide the future of the State, would not be in harmony with this principle.

The draft also mentions in the preamble that the difference between the two parties has been narrowed down to two main points. Since the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 1 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 have already been agreed to by both parties, this is the next step in our efforts to find a peaceful solution to this. The problem should obviously be to move along lines set forth in those resolutions and try to obtain the agreement of the parties upon details and procedures as well. Thus, the operative part of the draft resolution concentrates on this point. Naturally the most important task would be to arrange and to effect the demilitarisation of the area, as already agreed to the two parties in principle. This would be a preliminary condition for ensuring both the stability of the area and the realisation of the final objective that the plebiscite is held under fair and Impartial conditions and without undue pressure or influence-deliberate or unintentional-on behalf of anybody.

Therefore, the main function of the United Nations representative who is to be appointed under this resolution would be to effect the demilitarisation of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the general lines already agreed to.

An important paragraph of the draft resolution, in our view, is paragraph 6, making it possible to resort to arbitration on points of disagreement. It should be mentioned that the arbitration foreseen in this paragraph is not an overall arbitration for the whole of the question of Kashmir, since, as we have repeatedly pointed out, both parties have agreed on the general principle. Consequently, paragraph 6 covers only minor points of disagreement which may arise during the negotiations. It must be admitted that the only way for deciding such minor issues on which the parties may not agree, would be to submit them to impartial arbitration.

As I have tried to indicate briefly, we are substantially in agreement with the general lines of the joint draft resolution. The action taken by the Security Council during the last three years in regard to the question of Jammu and Kashmir has been by no means fruitless. May I recall that when the question came to the Council at the beginning of 1948, actual fighting was going on between the parties It was through the intervention of the Security Council that a cease-fire was obtained and the hostilities were stopped. It was due to the action of the Council and the efforts of its Commission for India and Pakistan that the parties agreed to the principle of deciding the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by means of a free and impartial plebiscite. Finally, the mission of Sir Owen Dixon made a beginning towards a lasting solution to the dispute. The present joint draft resolution is a further attempt in the same direction, and we sincerely believe it can and will produce the desired results. Particularly after revision, we think it goes a long way toward meeting the points made in this Council by the two parties at the beginning of our present debate.

It is with these considerations and convictions in mind. that we support the draft resolution, while reserving our attitude towards any point which may be raised or any suggestions or amendments which may be put forward during the further deliberations of the Security Council on this question. Our sole objective is to bring about a just and amicable solution to this dispute. We are also aware that such a solution can be brought about only if the parties themselves adopt a just, reasonable and realistic attitude towards this resolution.. We have no doubt they will.