29031951 Text of the Speech made by the President Mr. D. Von Balluseck as representative of the Netherland in the Security Council Meeting No. 538 held on 29 March, 1951
29031951 Text of the Speech made by the President Mr. D. Von Balluseck as representative of the Netherland in the Security Council Meeting No. 538 held on 29 March, 1951
There are no more speakers on my list. If none of the other representatives wishes to speak for the moment, I should like to make a few remarks in my capacity as representative of the NETHERLANDS.
Some of the things I am going to say have been mentioned before by other speakers. That is hardly surprising, taking into consideration that we have been debating this problem for more than three years. Most of what could be said has been said. Yet, some things, I think, should be repeated since they contain components of what may become agreement.
The draft resolution in its revised form, jointly presented. by the United Kingdom and the United States, needs and deserves the most careful study, since it represents a new and, we think, fair effort to Ind in equitable and peaceful solution for a problem which, if left unsolved, might seriously further endanger peace and stability in a vital part of our already badly harassed world. The Security Council, having due regard to its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security must endeavour to prevent that danger. Too much time has already passed since the question which still awaits its conclusive solution was placed before the Council. We must therefore earnestly hope that this time a speedy settlement will be reached and we must, in our opinion, exams the new suggested ways and means in the light of that need and, of course, of fairness and justice to the parties, but above all to the people of Jammu and Kashmir themselves.
I need not dwell extensively on the history of the case nor on the various stages through which this intricate problem has passed since 1948. There has been disagreement between the parties directly concerned on many of the points at issue. But as the draft resolution is before us points out, there has also been substantial agreement on some very fundamental principles We know that these principles are; that the accession of the State Jammu and Kashmir either to India or to Pakistan shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, after the cease-fire and truce arrangements have been carried out. That, in our opinion, is and must remain the basis for a just and equitable solution of the problem now under consideration.
With the assistance of the United Nations, certain very important achievements have already been factually attained. 1 refers to the effective cease-fire arrangement which has withstood all tensions during more than two years. The Governments of the two countries deserve great credit for having been able, often under great stress, to achieve the continuance of this agreement without which any further development of a just and peaceful solution would be fatally jeopardized.
Furthermore there has been acceptance by both parties of the principles to which I have just referred. The revised draft resolution submitted by the United Kingdom and the United States rightly, in our opinion, starts out by again laying stress on that point. We are then, we may earnestly hope, in the presence of a common and uncontested desire that the future of the territory and the population which are involved in the dispute should be decided through the free exercise of the right of self-determination by the people most directly concerned. The Netherlands Government has always considered the principle of self-determination as being of primary importance for human happiness and the peace of the world. It continues to believe in that principle, now that the Council is a again confronted with the Jammu and Kashmir case.
My country has in the recent past based its own policy in matters vital to our fundamental national interests upon this same important principle, even though it required from us far-reaching sacrifices, and it is this basic conception of freedom and self-determination of peoples which will continue to guide my Government also in matters where we have no other interest than the sincere wish to contribute to the well being of the world, and in this particular case, to the well being of friendly States with which we maintain cordial and mutually beneficial relations.
If the joint draft resolution points to an essential aspect of the right of self-determination, it reaffirms, in doing so, the fundamental freedoms of which the Charter of the United Nations constantly reminds us, and for which we have all assumed a great moral responsibility.
The basic agreement between the parties and the organs of the United Nations, that is to say the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, constitute a very definite framework which, however, must now be definitely filled in. The resolutions contain principles which have been accepted by both parties. In accepting them, both parties stand committed to their implementation and application. The cease-fire was applied and implemented. The next step should be the formulation of a truce agreement. For this also the principles have been laid down and accepted. They indicate ways and means for a process of demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in successive stages by the two contesting parties. They leave the final disposal of remaining armed forces, that is to say, after the truce agreement is implemented to the representative of the United Nation in consultation with the Indian Government on the one side of the cease fire line and the local authorities on the other side.
On the basis of the foregoing principles the truce agreement should be formulated. Once that is done, accepted and implemented, the plebiscite can then be organised and held. The demilitarisation contained in the truce agreement will in itself constitute one of the most important prerequisites for the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite itself. But we cannot proceed without the truce agreement. That must be brought about and formulated first of all. So far this has failed to materialise, and this failure constitutes one of the major stumbling blocks in the path towards a solution. The draft resolution now before us, rightly we think, has placed the task of removing this stumbling block in the hands of a new United Nations representative to be appointed. If he should fail on account of disagreement between the parties in regard to the interpretation and execution of the principles to which India and Pakistan stand committed then, according to the draft resolution, the points at issue should be submitted to arbitration, which the parties are now called upon to accept in operative paragraph 6. In that way the truce agreement could and should finally be effected, that is to say, the demilitarisation, which is indispensable to the free exercise of the right of self-determination of and by the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
From all this it is clear that the truce agreement, in other words, the implementation and application of the principles which have already been accepted, is an essential element of the problem with which we are dealing.
The draft resolution now before us endeavours once again to break the deadlock, first by giving wider powers to the United Nations representative, and second by formally introducing the element of arbitration, now that it has become evident that other peaceful means have been unable to produce adequate results.
Surely it would have been far preferable for the two. parties to have reached an agreement between themselves. However, we cannot but recognize the lesson which three years of experience have taught us. This lesson is that a basic difference of approach prevents the parties, if left to themselves, from composing their views
Indeed, there have been serious difficulties which offered to be almost impossible to overcome. There are conflicting conceptions in regard to the justification of the presence of the armed forces of the parties in dispute on the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There are objections to suggested ways and means for the synchronisation of the various stages in the process of demilitarisation. There are fears on both sides regarding the security of the bordering States and for the freedom of expression of the population of Jammu and Kashmir itself. These solicitudes may perhaps wholly or in part be explained in the light of the history and the evolution of the case But once the right to self determination for the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is as it has been-recognized, once it is clearly accepted by the parties in dispute-as it has been that they have no right to impose anything upon these people against their wishes and that therefore these wishes must prevail over the wishes and claims of the bordering States, it must be possible to find a procedure which will create the most favourable conditions for a fair expression of the will of the people, who want to make their choice free from any kind of fear or intimidation.
The issue should, in the last analysis, be decided by the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and not by the rulers heretofore placed over them. The choice of affiliation to one nation or another is so fundamental in its nature and consequences that only the people themselves can and ought to make that choice. It stands to reason that such a choice should be freely made, untrammeled by biased pressure from interested outside parties. No prearranged political organisation in part of the State concerned, set up under the auspices of authorities which have already made their choice, should interfere with this complete freedom of choice. For that reason my Government is inclined to agree with what was said in substance by the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States on the subject of the Kashmir National Conference. For the same reason we approve the relevant paragraphs in the preamble of the draft resolution now before us, as well as operative paragraph 8.
I should like to add a few words on the matter of arbitration. In a case like the one with which we are dealing, this would seem to be the logical procedure, since it concerns questions which, as the representative of Brazil has so ably explained, might well be considered as coming within the widely acknowledged justiciable sphere where arbitration would be fully justified. Two parties have agreed on certain principles for the solution of a problem. They stand committed to these principles, but they disagree on interpretation and implementation. Also they are both Members of the United Nations. They have subscribed to the Charter which stipulates in Article 2, paragraph 3 that "all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means" and which in Article 33 commits them first of all to seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, etc. A number of these means have now been tried during the last three years without success. Arbitration seems therefore to be in order, the more so since it would not determine the final solution, but only the interpretation of such already agreed principles dealing with a preliminary stage of the solution as would give rise to differences of opinion and thereby block any further action. We therefore would most earnestly urge the parties, notwithstanding what has been said this afternoon by the representative of India, to accept arbitration as a means to pave the way towards an ultimate settlement.
For too long has action towards an equitable solution of the problem of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to one or the other of its great neighbouring States of the subcontinent has been blocked. This delay has given rise to dangerous tensions and sometimes to irresponsible, emotional campaigns. Yet in part 1, section E of the resolution of 13 August 1948 the Governments of India and Pakistan agreed "to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations." Tension prolonged too far may, however, frustrate the most serious efforts of this nature.
The Security Council therefore must now live up to its responsibilities for the maintenance of peace and security In devising the means which are to be conducive to a just settlement, the rights and wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve first consideration My Government believes that the interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the peace between the great nations of India and Pakistan, will be well served by a procedure such as that proposed in the revised draft resolution now presented to us by the United Kingdom and the United States. For those reasons the Netherlands Government has instructed me to support this draft resolution, with the fervent hope that it may succeed in giving the people of Jammu and Kashmir what they want, and that it may bridge the gap which now separates two countries, whose constructive cooperation and good neighbour policy could contribute so much to the peace of the world.