Text of the Speech made by Mr. Ross (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 571 held on 30 January 1952

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Ross (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 571 held on 30 January 1952

When the Security Council considered the report of the United Nations Representative during the 570th meeting, the United States representative observed that the practice of mediation is one of the greatest of arts and in our country Mr. Graham is one of its most distinguished practitioners, This fact is more apparent today than ever. The United Nations Representative has been continues to be as it has been, to build agreement brick by brick to form the structure of a settlement between two sovereign States. This is a purpose as simple to two sovereign States. This is a purpose as simple to state as it is difficult to accomplish in the tensions of the world in which we live and of which we are all a part.

Mr. Graham's second report and his oral presentation of it to the Security Council on 17 January 1952 are monuments, if one requires them, to this art of mediation which Mr. Graham so skillfully practices. His report is outstanding for one thing alone: It carefully states the issue. The issue is to find an agreed and I emphasise the word "agreed" and not an imposed solution for three questions "first, a definite period for demilitarisation: secondly, the scope of demilitarisation and quantum of forces that will remain at the end of the period of demilitarisation: thirdly the day for the formal induction into office of the Plebiscite Administrator".

Mr. Graham goes beyond stating the issue. He has put before the Security Council the principles in which it can be resolved. First there must be agreement of the parties if the settlement it is to be lasting and, naturally, agreement must involve compromise. One can search in vain in Mr. Graham's report for any suggestion or any implication of imposing a settlement that would force upon the parties or the people of Kashmir a political future not of their own choosing. He is attempting to bring about a free and impartial plebiscite. To use his own words when he addressed this Council two weeks ago [570th meeting]: "The plebiscite would keep the promise made to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who are worthy of the right of their own self-determination through a free, secure and impartial plebiscite."

The second principle implicit in Mr. Graham's work is that this dispute must not be deadlocked but must show movement along the road to settlement. Time in our opinion is running against both parties. One side or the other might feel that delay will somehow favour its cause. But delay and frustration are not allies of either side; they are the moral enemies of both. The forces of chaos work internally and also from the outside. Time is not a luxury to any of us whose objectives and principles are fundamentally similar. Whoever would suggest in seriousness that all of the structure built so patiently brick by brick should now be abandoned ? Again I would let the United Nations Representative speak for himself. He told us two weeks ago that "the time is past when society can safely take slow decades and centuries to muddle through ..... adjustments''. He said: "Social drift and unsettled disputes' ' and he mentioned specifically the Kashmir dispute can "now involve mankind", if allowed to go unchecked, "in the swift and total tragedy of global war"

The United Nations Representative has put before the parties a twelve-point programme. It provides a logical and well-balanced framework in which to carry out the demilitarisation upon which the parties themselves have agreed and which they have also agreed is a necessary prelude to the holding of a plebiscite. Through that plebiscite, the parties have also agreed that the people of the State can exercise their right of self-determination.

My Government feels today, as it did when the United States representative addressed the Council on 10 November 1951, that these twelve points form a solid basis on which the parties can reach agreement. The last November, Mr. Graham has made progress. It has been slow, but progress there has been. He has translated the outstanding issues which I stated a sometime ago and which are now all that stand between the parties and a completely operative agreement. In some way or another, he tells us, solutions can be found for these problems.

We were struck by what he said on the fixing of a time for the induction into office of the Plebiscite administrator. He has called this a linchpin that would integrate his programme. My Government agrees. As we looks around the Council table and see the two parties to this dispute sitting here with the United Nations Representative, one sees in this fact alone tangible evidence of a desire to settle this case by the peaceful means which Members of the United Nations have obliged themselves to use in the settlement of disputes.

If we look back to Mr. Graham's report of 15 October 1951, there was agreement on four of these twelve principles. Then, in his report of 19 November 1951 [566th meeting], there was agreement on four more, thus reducing the issues to their bare bones. This is the progress which has been made up to now towards the settlement of the Kashmir question.

My Government feels that this progress has not been and should not be halted. In the coming weeks we shall look for clear evidence of movement towards settlement of the basic issues. The United States feels that none of the remaining issues is an insurmountable barrier between the parties and a peaceful solution, a Charter solution, an agreed solution. Not lightly should the parties, or any of us, cast away the fabric of agreement as it now exists.

The Security Council gave its representative a heavy task.

by its resolution of 30 March 1951 [S 2017/Rev. 1], which in paragraphs 3 and 5 instructed him to effect demilitarisation and analyse the points of difference between the parties. The Security Council has further instructed him, on 10 November 1951, in paragraph 2 of its resolution [S/2392] of that date: "...to continue his efforts to obtain agreement of the parties on a plan for effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir". This is precisely the task upon which Mr. Graham is now engaged.

Mr. Graham has narrowed the issues to two critical ones, and the emphasis, we feel, must now be put on resolving these two issues. The efforts of the next weeks will either see these issues resolved, or we shall know that patience, persistence and wisdom have once again been unrewarded, except perhaps by frustrations and dilatory manoeuvres. In this sense, Mr. Graham's continued effort might justly be described as a final one.

We agree that Mr. Graham needs no further directive from the Security Council, and we feel that his continued effort will necessarily involve his return to the subcontinent of India and Pakistan, and it will also involve a final report, which I should expect by the end of March, as various representatives have indicated this afternoon.

On 17 January Mr. Graham told us that negotiation is still the way to a solution of the unresolved issues. He also expressed the view that the time has met with the place and the opportunity to settle this dispute. We agree with this view.

We would also venture to express the hope that leadership by the parties-indeed, real statesmanship on their part will open the way to a successful negotiation and a speedy solution of this dispute which, in our view, has too long remained unsolved.