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

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

My delegation has listened with care to the statements. made by the representatives of India and Pakistan at the meetings of the Security Council on 1, 6, 7 and 9 March [533rd, 534th, 535th, 536th meetings, and to the statement of Sir Benegal Rau yesterday afternoon [538th meeting]. I note that both Sir Benegal Rau and Sir Mohammad Zafrulla Khan devoted consi portions of their statements to the history of the case, particularly to the events that occurred in October 1947. It is certainly not the desire of my delegation to pronounce judgement on any phase of the historical background of the question. My only desire is to help to find a peaceful and satisfactory solution of the dispute between the two States, which ought to be good neighbours and the best of friends.

The revised joint draft resolution introduced on 21 March by the delegations of the United Kingdom and the United States is, in the opinion of my delegation, in perfect harmony with the spirit and temper in which the Security Council has endeavoured to settle this dispute. The draft resolution at its outset reminds the parties that they have accepted the provisions of the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, and have reaffirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations" that is the central feature of the draft resolution, and all other features are subordinate or supplementary and are designed to bring about that free and impartial plebiscite.

The remarkable thing about the whole dispute is the undoubted fact that the two parties and the Security Council are all agreed on the principle of a free and impartial plebiscite. It is true that certain differences that arose have prevented up to the present time a solution of the Kashmir question, but these differences relate not to the principle but to the procedure for conducting a free and impartial plebiscite..

As I have said, differences that have arisen between the two parties relate not to the principle but in the procedure to be adopted. I would humbly submit that if such differences cannot be resolved by direct negotiation, they should be settled by third parties. Fortunately, in this case, the vast majority of the Members of the United Nations and of the Security Council are friendly to both India and Pakistan, and have no direct interest in the eventual disposal of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. No matter how the two parties object to the various proposals more to them by this Council, by the Commission, and more recently for our representative, neither India nor Pakistan has accused us of bias or partiality. In fact, I think the Council, the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, and the United Nations representative have not been extraordinarily fair and patient.

The draft resolution before us contemplates arbitration upon all outstanding points of difference by an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators to be appointed by the President of the International Court of Justice in consultation with the parties. This is the proposed machinery in case differences in regard to procedure cannot be settled in the consultations between the United Nations representative and the representatives of India. and Pakistan. The scheme of arbitration so provided has every guarantee of fairness and impartiality.

The representative of India has raised objections to the provisions of paragraph 6 of the draft resolution which refers to arbitration [538th meeting. With all due respect to Sir Benegal Rau and to what he said yesterday afternoon, I still maintain the view, which is also held by the representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, the Netherlands, Ecuador, France and others, that this proposal is a key provision in the draft resolution in the present circumstances

My delegation supports the main features of the draft resolution. I hope that the two parties, after further consideration, will accept the proposed resolution and will cooperate heartily with the United Nations representative in. effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The problem of demilitarisation has always bulked large in the discussion of the procedure of the plebiscite. Sir Owen Dixon's recommendation [S/1791] differs somewhat. from the recommendation of the Council and of the Commission. Sir Benegal Rau took pains to point out the differences. I concede that these differences are real. It may well be that a free and fair plebiscite does not require a total demilitarisation and that armed forces could be so placed as to exercise no effect or very little effect upon the results of the plebiscite. For those reasons, my delegation will not insist upon total demilitarisation and is prepared to support the United States United Kingdom draft resolution.

There is one new development in the question of Kashmir, and that is the constituent assembly referred to in the third and fifth paragraphs of the preamble of the draft resolution. My delegation is very apprehensive in this regard. Such a constituent assembly may adopt a resolution declaring the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India, or the assembly may incorporate in the constitution an article. to that effect. In either form, such an act would not be in harmony with the resolution adopted by this Coun or with the resolutions of the Commission Sir Benegal Rau's statements on this point, while moderate, are unfortunately not quite definite. Nevertheless. I deduce from his statement the conclusion that no such resolution or constitutional article is contemplated, and I hope that my deduction is correct. However, such a constituent assembly might prejudice the issue. in other ways. In the first place, a constitution adopted before the plebiscite would have the tendency, or at least the appearance of having the tendency, of making a formal definitive relationship of Kashmir to India, In the second place, the constitutional provisions which the constituent assembly might have. adopt might dovetail the State political structure of Kashmir so closely with the State political structure of Kashmir so closely with the State political structure of India as to signify definitive accession. Such tendencies or appearances may arouses suspicions and passions which may make the solution of the problem more difficult than it is now.

Pending the solution of the problem, this Council has a right to expect both parties not to take measures which would further complicate the question. The amended draft resolution is certainly in harmony with the Charter and with the principles of peace and friendly international relations which I sincerely hope will be acceptable to the leaders of India and Pakistan. The question is so grave and so complicated that nobody should favour undue haste. On the other hand, the very gravity of the situation would also make it unwise to indulge in any unnecessary delay. The main features of the draft resolution are so obviously right that the Council must at least make a serious effort to implement them.