30041951  Text of the Speech made by Mr. Austin (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 543 held on 30 April, 1951

30041951  Text of the Speech made by Mr. Austin (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 543 held on 30 April, 1951

When my Government undertook to explore the possibility of presenting the name of someone to this Council for the post of United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan, it turned to the Panel for Inquiry and Conciliation created by General Assembly resolution 268 D (III) of 28 April 1949 on the recommendation of the Interim Committee. Mr. Graham, as you know, is among the five distinguished United States citizens designated by my Government for inclusion in the panel. His fine qualities are well appreciated in the United States, where he is known as a distinguished educator, statesman, government official and negotiator of great ability. I know that he will bring to this new task in full measure the qualities needed for the accomplishment of his mission.

In expressing the good wishes of the United States for the success of the mission of the new United Nations Representative, I should like to add a word or two regarding the character of that mission. This is or may be two-fold, as the Council knows. His first effort will be to affect demilitarisation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the international agreement embodied in the 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan [S/1100, S/1196). While previous efforts to bring about agreement between the parties on the demilitarisation provisions of these resolutions made by the United Nations Commission, by General McNaughton and Sir Owen Dixon have not been successful, they have undeniably made progress toward the desired end. The area of disagreement has been narrowed and we have, thanks to them, a fairly clear picture of what these disagreements are. I am sure that the debate on the Kashmir question recently concluded in the Council, in which the representatives of Pakistan and India have presented their governments' views, has been most helpful to the members of this Council. Council members' intervention exhibited a large measure of agreement in their understanding of the issues and in their ideas of what should be done to resolve them.

The disagreements on the demilitarisation process still existing are basically differences of interpretation of how the framework provided by the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission should be filled in. These resolutions, in attempting to devise procedures which would furnish adequate security and equitable treatment for all, went as far as was possible at the stage then reached The procedural details necessarily had to be left to be worked out by the parties. This they have not yet fully succeeded in doing. It is our earnest hope that both parties will work out with Mr. Graham and implement the details of demilitarisation preparatory to the plebiscite, which will permit the people of Kashmir freely to express their will regarding the question of accession.

If, however, these efforts should fail of their purpose, the United Nations Representative would embark in the second phase of his mission. He would return to this Council and report to it those points of difference between the parties, in regard to the interpretation and execution of the agreed resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, which he considers must be resolved to enable demilitarisation to be effected. The arbitration clause of the present resolution would then become operative, and the United States most earnestly urges that the parties accept the arbitration procedure as a final step to concluding a peaceful settlement of this problem, which holds such danger for the peace, prosperity and stability of the great sub-continent. I fully concur with our President who said at the 538th meeting of this Council.

"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 participle sphere where arbitration would fully satisfied.``