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

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

I should like to explain briefly my delegation's general attitude regarding the revised draft resolution of the United Kingdom and United States delegations on the question of Kashmir.

My country is, of course, graphically speaking, denoted from the actual scene of the dispute, which has resolved into one of the most complex problems confronting the Security Council. We are nonetheless only aware of the extent to which the continuance of this problem not only affects the relations between the Member States and trammels the normal economic and cultural development of four million Kashmiris, but make places the peace and security of a sensitive area of the world in serious jeopardy. We therefore share wholeheartedly the desire repeatedly expressed here but some further advance should now be made towards the solution of the problem.

We have listened with the greatest attention to all the views expressed both by the parties themselves and the other representatives seated round this table. We have also endeavoured to study the factual background of the case and, in particular, the various efforts made so far to reach a settlement, and this has brought us to certain general conclusions,

The problem as we see it presents three salient features. The first is the existence of an agreement between the parties on the general principle of a settlement. The second is the persistent differences on a number of points connected with the implementation of that general principle. The third feature-and one that is frequently overlooked-is the fact that agreement has proved possible on such important points as, suspension of arms, the establishment of a formal cease-fire and the demarcation of a cease-fire line, which are after expressed pre requisites of any peaceful settlement, and this agreement has been achieved by means of direct negotiations between th: parties, with a varying measure of United Nations assistance.

This appears to us to point to the course the Council should follow in its endeavour to do away with the differences now dividing the parties. What we should try to do, in the view of my delegation, is to assist the parties gradually to narrow, in direct contact and by their own efforts, the areas of disagreement between them and thus move towards a settlement which obviously is in the interest of them both. Such a course a course, incidentally, to which Sir Owen Dixon's preferences went at the close of his painstaking efforts to reach a settlement appears to us to be not only, generally speaking, the soundest way of resolving matters of this nature but also, in view of present circumstances, the only really useful contribution we can make towards the solution of this vexed problem.

There is an alternative course, naturally. Such a course would consist in attempting to reach a solution for the parties rather than in helping them to achieve it themselves, of imposing upon the parties-or upon one of them the actual mode of implementation of a settlement the principle of which they have already accepted. I feel that such a course would not merely in all probability prove futile, but might even impair what chances still remain of reaching an understanding on the yet unresolved issues and diminish rather than increase the prospects of an overall settlement.

It is in the light of these considerations that my delegation has examined with the utmost care the draft resolution now before the Security Council, and more specially the latter half of its operative part. We regret that we have not been able altogether to escape the impression that the draft resolution inclines towards the second of the two courses described, without having fully explored the possibilities of the first course. I shall therefore have to abstain on the resolution.