30031951 Text of the Speech made by Mr Lacoste (France) in the Security Council Meeting No. 539 held on 30 March, 1951

 Text of the Speech made by Mr Lacoste (France) in the Security Council Meeting No. 539 held on 30 March, 1951

The French delegation has listened with the utmost attention to the discussion which has once again taken place in the Council on the Kashmir question. It did not think it had much to learn about the basic facts of a situation with which the Council has been only too familiar in the three years during which the item has been on its agenda. In such a serious matter, however, the distressing and dangerously critical nature of which is shown by the fact that it persists in spite of so many efforts to settle it, care must be taken to avoid the risk of over-confidence, and untiring efforts must be made to hear the parties to the dispute and carefully to analyse their statements so long as they think they have some fresh light to throw on the points at issue. In this respect, however, it would appear that ample justice has been done to the two eloquent spokesmen for the opposing sides, and that both of them have had full opportunity to develop their cases and make their replies

My delegation has sought in vain to find, in the facts the parties have adduced or the arguments they have repeated, any such new factor that would convince it of the need to reconsider the positions it has taken before.

Year by year the eloquence and skill of the representatives of India and Pakistan seem to raise new aspects of the subject. However, a calm study of their speeches and of the practical results they have each year achieved, leads to the dual conclusion that, in the realm of ideas the Council has had no occasion to change its position since the decisions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 were taken, and that, so far as the facts are concerned, there has unfortunately been no real progress towards a settlement of the dispute.

Under the resolutions I have just mentioned-resolutions which marked development of paramount importance in this case because they won the support of both parties-the Council proclaimed the need to settle by a just and impartial plebiscite the problem of the accession of Kashmir to one or other of the two States successors to the Indian Empire.

The unanimous agreement reached on that principle should have made it possible harmoniously and quickly to settle a problem which is a serious threat to peace in an important region of the world. No such action has been taken, however. That is not the Council's fault, nor the fault of the United Nations representative, nor even, perhaps, the fault of either or both of the two parties. It is rather due to the all too usual combination of things which so frequently causes such a long interval in space and time between the proclamation of a principle unanimously admitted and its effective application to the world of facts.

Everyone here is aware of the difficulties which Sir Owen Dixon encountered, and we can only regret that the efforts he so generously made should finally have proved vain. The fact remains that the holding of a really just and impartial plebiscite-such as the two parties expressly wanted it to be and have undertaken to see that it should be, so far as it is in their power to do so-requires the previous fulfilment of one condition That is that the territory, the inhabitants of which are called upon to vote, should be freed from any improper influence, such as that inevitably involved in the presence of occupation troops from outside belonging to one or other of the parties concerned. The plebiscite must therefore be preceded by the demilitarisation of Jammu and Kashmir. It is surely not an impossible task-it should not even be a very difficult task-to draw up an equitable plan of demilitarisation in accordance with the principles already accepted by the parties concerned. And two parties of good faith and we do not doubt the good faith of the parties in this case-should be able to agree on such a plan of demilitarisation.

After two years, the failure of Sir Owen Dixon's mission and of all attempts to facilitate a direct arrangement, between India and Pakistan have confronted the Council, much against its will, with responsibilities which it thought it had finally. fulfilled, and brought it back to the point where it was on 5 January 1949.

We should be grateful to the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States for their painstaking efforts during the past few weeks to reconcile the points of view and devise a solution acceptable to everyone. In its revised form, the joint draft resolution they have submitted to us is simplicity itself. Starting from the resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949-to which we must always return because they won the express agreement of both India and Pakistan it restates the need for a plebiscite, endeavours to make a plebiscite possible by trying to solve the previous problem of demilitarisation, and provides that to that end a representative of the United Nations shall proceed to effect demilitarisation after consultation with the parties. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the plan submitted to them, provision is made for arbitration, and, to make assurance doubly sure, arbitration is to be carried out by an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators appointed, not by a political body, but by the President of the International Court of Justice.

That is the core of the draft resolution. For sometime there has been no question of anything but setting to motion the implementation of resolutions already accepted by everyone. The methods the draft resolution proposes for that purpose should raise no objections from any Member of the United Nations as it consists of its duty and is sincerely anxious to discharge it. As a recent meeting, Sir Gladwyn Jebb recalled [537th meeting that when we signed the San Francisco Charter, we all subscribed to certain fundamental principles and that the principle of most importance, the one most vital in the world today both for the international community and for each of its Members, was that which made it incumbent upon us to find a peaceful solution for all our disputes. It is enough to recall Article 33, paragraph 1 of the Charter, which reads:

"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, concilition, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice".

That text is undoubtedly relevant to our task. No one here can doubt that the two parties concerned are fully aware of their responsibilities to the United Nations. They have already given proof of their readiness to discharge them. They have accepted the cease-fire the Council ordered in Kashmir, and they have accepted the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the final settlement of their dispute.

That is the heart of the matter. The rest, it must be said, is only incidental. If each party clings to details of implementation, reasoning will be carried away by sentiment and national pride, and the irritation caused by the fact that the controversy has gone on too long will lead the party to discover, persuade itself and demonstrate that every detail me jeopardizes the essential principle. Such a discussion might be prolonged, so to speak, to infinity. But that is just where the parties to a dispute which has already dragged on for so long and which, as Sir Gladwyn Jebb has so rightly observed, is not of a kind to be cured or alleviated by time, must show an international spirit, loftiness of views, and wisdom.

The governments of States like India and Pakistan owe it to the international community, and to themselves, to demonstrate their political maturity on this occasion. The draft resolution which the United Kingdom and the United States submitted to us does not ask the parties to sacrifice principles, ideas or even interests. It does no more than ask them to apply to the settlement of their dispute, in stages of which they have already recognized the need, classical methods, approved by the founders of our law, tried by experience, incorporated in the Charter and recommended for three years by the Council as the best means-if not, in the absence of direct agreement, the only means-of escaping from what seems to us to be assuming more and more the appearance of a dangerous impasse.

The governments of these two States, both of which for various reasons are of very great physical and moral importance in contemporary international society, cannot fail to understand what serious responsibilities they are incurring, in the present circumstances, towards their respective peoples and towards that international society.

In supporting the Anglo-American revised draft resolution, my delegation has the feeling, born of mature reflection. that it is violating no one's rights, and that it is acting both in the spirit and within the limits of justice. It wishes to convey an assurance in this sense to the representatives of those two great States, and it ardently desires that by a happy solution of this painful case they may find the peace they need to enable them to continue their progressive work.