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

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

In explaining my vote I should in the first place, like to remark on behalf of my government the decision which this Council has just taken and, in particular, to express my Government's appreciation of Mr. Graham's readiness. to undertake the great and admittedly arduous responsibilities of his appointment as United Nations representative for India and Pakistan. Mr Graham surely we know, carry with him to the sub-continent our good wishes and the firm support of the Council as a whole. His task is clear: it is to work for a settlement of those differences which have so far prevented the Governments of India and Pakistan from effecting the demilitarisation of Kashmir. If he succeeds in this the way will be open for Admiral Nimitz, as Plebiscite Administrator, to organise the plebiscite to decide the future accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

None of us, I think, has any illusions about the difficulty of the task which Mr. Graham has, fortunately, accepted, but we all trust that he will find the two governments ready to reach some agreement on a question which, if it only could be considered dispassionately, is by no means insoluble. Mr. Graham, in undertaking this mission on behalf of the United Nations, will, I hope, feel strengthened by the clear and unequivocal views expressed by members of the Council in the discussions leading up to the adoption of the resolution of 30 March.

If the wise statesmanship which led the two governments to agree on the cease-fire in Kashmir and to acceptance of the two resolutions for the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, can be applied to the immediate problem of demilitarisation, there should indeed, we think, be real hope of progress towards a settlement. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has, however, noticed with regret what appears to be a misapprehension in the Indian subcontinent on certain aspects of the resolution of 30 March, and notably in regard to arbitration. We have seen it suggested that under that resolution the United Nations Representative is instructed to go to the subcontinent and to decide, as an arbitrator, whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir should accede to India or to Pakistan. But of course that is not in the least what the resolution says. As my Government understands the resolution, in fact it instructs the United Nations Representative, after consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan, to use his best endeavours to obtain their agreement to a plan for the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the principles contained in the two United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions. Further, it instructs him, after obtaining this agreement, to put the plan into effect. In other words, his instructions are to bring about the demilitarisation of the State in agreement, if possible, with the Governments of India and Pakistan. So far, his task is to be entirely one of negotiation. In this capacity he will have, of course, the full authority of the Security Council and the United Nations behind him, and he will be able to point to the views expressed by the majority of the members of this Council in regard to the fundamental principle that demilitarisation should be such that the plebiscite can be held free from any influence by the armed forces of any interested party to the dispute. But nevertheless his task will be that of negotiation and not a task of arbitration.

If, however, he is unable to obtain the agreement of the Governments of India and Pakistan to a plan for demilitarisation, or for putting such a plan into effect, the United Nations Representative is instructed to report back to the Council and to define those points of difference, arising out of the interpretation and execution of the two agreed United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions, which are preventing demilitarisation. Only then, if the United Nations Representative reports such points of difference, will the question of arbitration arise, and arbitration would deal only with the points of difference concerning demilitarisation.

So it should be clear, we think, that the resolution of 30 March calls upon the parties to accept arbitration only on matters which might be described as procedural rather than substantive, only on matters concerning the demilitarisation of the State, which is a part of the procedure for holding a plebiscite, and not on the substantive question of accession itself.

The accession itself, far from being decided by the United Nations Representative, or by the arbitral panel for that matter, is to be decided by a free vote of the inhabitants. of the State. The whole purpose of the resolution, as my Government sees it at any rate, and the purpose which I am sure will guide Mr. Graham in his mission as United Nations Representative, is to facilitate holding of a plebiscite to decide the future accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in circumstances which will ensure for the inhabitants of the State the right to express their preference in full knowledge of all the facts and without fear that they will suffer by expressing such preference.

It is because the co-sponsors were convinced-and here I think I speak also for my United States colleague-that the inhabitants of Kashmir should not the prevented any longer by disagreement on matters of procedure from deciding the accession of their State to either India or Pakistan, that they included in the resolution which they presented to the Council provision for the determination of this disagreement by arbitration in case one final attempt to resolve it by negotiation should fail.

Finally, in wishing Mr. Graham success in his mission. I should like to repeat what I said when I introduced the draft resolution on 21 February last [553rd meeting]. I spoke then as follows:

"I do not feel, indeed, that I can emphasise too. much the fact that both Governments agreed on

the essential elements of a settlement and that all that is now required is goodwill on both sides to solve outstanding points of detail. Given the far reaching benefits which a settlement would bring and in all too obvious dangers of the continuance of the dispute, not only to the two countries themselves, but to all those countries elsewhere in the world which value human liberty and the demo erratic way of life, I trust I am not being too sanguine in expressing the hope that a final settlement of the dispute can now readily be achieved."