24011957. Text of the Speech made by Mr. Walker (Australia) in the Security Council meeting No. 765 held on 24 January 1957

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Walker (Australia) in the Security Council meeting No. 765 held on 24 January 1957

It is not my intention today to enter at any length at all into the substance of the difficult and long-standing problem of Kashmir, but I thought I should say a few words immediately regarding the draft resolution which, together with several other representatives here, we are submitting to the Council. We think that it is necessary to present this draft resolution now and to comment briefly on it just because of the march of the calendar and the references which have been made to the date of 26 January, which, together with India, we share as a national festival.

I should like to say that, so far as I am concerned, I took the representative of India's remarks yesterday as being a full statement on the particular matter to which this draft resolution is addressed, and for that reason I was prepared to join in sponsoring the draft resolution this morning.

The Kashmir problem is one that has occupied the attention of the Security Council for a number of years, and I think it will be recognized that if a solution satisfactory to both India and Pakistan has not been put into effect, it is not through any lack of effort on the part of the Council or through any failure by the members of the Council to study the complexities of the problem in a spirit of good will towards both parties. Indeed, the Council has, in its past resolutions, laid down certain basic steps that should be taken towards a solution, steps which were firmly founded upon the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The first step was to establish and police a ceasefire, which happily is still in force. In an attempt to move ahead towards a constructive solution, the Council has declared the rights of the people of Kashmir to determine their own political future and has placed faith in the recognized democratic method of a plebiscite to be conducted in conditions that would ensure a free vote without any concern. However, the Council's efforts, through its Commission and its successive Representatives, to bring this about have not yet been successful, and we are again requested, this time by Pakistan, to take up the matter.

The Australian delegation enters upon this discussion with a deep sense of responsibility, for the people of Australia have followed this problem of Kashmir with great anxiety and concern. One of the most remarkable results of the United Kingdom's policy in terminating imperial rule in India was that it paved the way for a new relationship between Australia, on the one hand, and India and Pakistan, on the other. The growing sense of our partnership with India and Pakistan in the Commonwealth has been a prominent factor in the minds of Australians in recent years, and today the Australian people are widely conscious of their close ties with India and Pakistan, ties that have been strengthened by personal contact, especially with the many young men and women who have come to study in our universities and colleges.

This conflict over Kashmir has grieved us, and, as is usual when one's close friends quarrel, we have not been eager to take sides. But we have endeavoured to understand sympathetically the issues at stake and to encourage an amicable settlement. The efforts of the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Menzies, in this direction are well known, as is the work of Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative in 1950, and of General Nimmo, the present United Nations Chief Military Observer in Kashmir.

We Australians believe most sincerely that the continuing existence of this conflict can only bring with it evil effects for peace in the sub-continent, for the evolution of democratic government in the two countries, and for the economic development of Kashmir and the welfare of its people. The sole interest of the Australian Government in this matter is to do what we can, in the circumstances prevailing, to assist the parties to find a just and mutually acceptable solution of this problem.

We have listened most carefully to the statement made before the Council last week by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, Mr. Khan Noon [761st meeting], and to the detailed reply we heard yesterday and today from the representative of India, Mr. Krishna Menon [762nd to 764th meetings.] Both statements are extremely important and require the most painstaking consideration in the Council, and I can assure Mr. Noon and Mr. Menon that their observations and arguments will close and serious examination by my delegation and by the Australian Government.

Those statements exposed very clearly the complexity of the problems that had to be faced by the United Kingdom and by the political leaders of India and Pakistan in connection with the transfer of sovereignty, the establishments of practicable systems of government, and the settlement of the delicate issues relating to the former Princely States. That there are limits to human wisdom and the capacity to solve such problems is unfortunately all too true, and is tragically illustrated by the situation in Kashmir. Nevertheless, one cannot but note that the achievements of both India and Pakistan in building their State are in part a reflection of the great measure of wisdom displayed by those who had to resolve the difficult constitutional and related problems that have been explained to us in these statements.

I am not at all convinced that it would be desirable for the Council to take up in detail many of the particular questions of past history that have been ventilated by the representatives of Pakistan and India. The charges and counter-charges of conspiracy and aggression have been considered at great length by the Council in the past. It seems to me most important at the present stage to concentrate our attention upon the fundamental principles already recognized by the Council.

There is no doubt in my mind that whatever varying interpretations may have been placed by India or Pakistan at various times on the conditions to be fulfilled before a plebiscite should be undertaken, and whatever the course of action of these parties at various stages of the dispute, the Security Council has committed itself to the principle that the wishes of the Kashmiri people regarding their future should be established through a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations. As I see it, this is the view of the Security Council, as expressed in several resolutions, and it is my impression that the Council has in the past considered India and Pakistan as having accepted this principle.

grin Perhaps I should say in passing that Mr Menon's statement, interesting and powerfully argued though it was, still leaves me in some doubt as to just where the Indian Government stands today in relation to this principle, and it may be necessary for us to go into this question at a later stage. But it has no bearing on the fact that the Council has been, and is of this moment, committed to the principle of a plebiscite.

The Security Council also considered it necessary almost five years ago to record its view that any action taken in a Constituent Assembly in Kashmir to determine the political future of the people of Kashmir would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with this principle. What view is to be taken, therefore, by the Security Council as to the significance of the deliberations of the Kashmir Constituent Assembly? I confess that it is not altogether clear to me just what is expected to happen in Kashmir from a constitutional viewpoint on 26 January. I understand that the Constituent Assembly has adopted a Constitution for Kashmir, some of whose provisions were operative from 17 November 1956, and the remainder were to come into effect on 26 January. What is not completely clear is to what extent this represents any new step purporting to determine the future affiliations of the State of Kashmir and whether it is regarded by the Government of India as raising a new barrier in the way of a plebiscite in accordance with the Security Council's past resolutions.

I do not know whether the Government of India itself proposes to take any formal step to accept such changes as are purported to be made through this Constitution drawn up by the Constituent Assembly. It would seem to us that any such formal action would be in conflict with the past resolutions of the Council. If, on the other hand, the Constituent Assembly is merely going to dissolve itself on 26 January and celebrate the completion of its activities, the question remains as to whether those activities are regarded by the Government of India as having any bearing on the disposition of Kashmir and the question of taking a future plebiscite. If so, they would seem to us to be equally inimical to the Council's past resolutions on this subject.

In these circumstances, it does seem desirable to us that the Council, before going any further with its examination of this difficult and important problem, should draw the attention of all concerned to the Council's earlier decisions. For this and it expresses reason, the Australian delegation has joined in sponsoring the draft resolution which is before us, the hope that the Council will adopt it without undue delay.