24011957 Text of the Speech made by the President Mr. Carlos P. Romulo as the Representative of the Philippines in the Security Council Meeting No. 765 held on 24 January 1957
24011957 Text of the Speech made by the President Mr. Carlos P. Romulo as the Representative of the Philippines in the Security Council Meeting No. 765 held on 24 January 1957
I shall now speak as the representative of the PHILIPPINES.
My Government has approached the question now before the Security council with the utmost sympathy towards the two nations, for which we entertain the friendliest of feelings. The Philippines is not deciding this matter in favour of one nation against another. We are not taking sides. We are not, in fact, sitting as if in judgement of a case. We have not the least desire to see the matter aggravated by an exacerbation of misgivings which can but lead to a possible breach of the peace, We have noted at the outset of the negotiations between India and Pakistan a commendable disposition on the part of both to make things easier for them to come to terms. We have hoped sincerely, and will continue to hope, that the original spirit of mutual concession would prevail throughout the negotiations in the interests of the peace and welfare of both nations, towards which, I reiterate, the Philippines has nothing but the utmost good will. My Government believes with the United Nations representative for India and Pakistan that direct negotiations may pave the way towards the definitive solution of the nine-year-old dispute between the two countries.
This is not to belittle the achievement of Mr. Frank Graham and his predecessors, whose efforts at mediation have considerably narrowed down the area of disagreement between the parties on the question of demilitarisation. As a matter of fact, the last resolution adopted by the Security Council on 23 December 1952 [S/2883] urged the parties to enter into immediate negotiations in order to agree on the remaining issue, namely the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line. The fifth report of Mr. Graham, dated 27 March 1953 [S/2967], would seem to imply that perhaps agreement would be forthcoming if one or the other of the parties were willing to make greater concessions than he would be entitled to ask objectively in his capacity as mediator.
Be that as it may, the representative of Pakistan reports that the attempts of his country to secure agreement through direct parleys had proved abortive. On his part, the representative of India seems to imply that a true agreement is no longer possible because of a breach of the conditions which could have put it in operation.
My Government is at a loss to accept either conclusion in the face of the claim put forward by each party that it has done, is doing, or will do, its best to achieve agreement. Incidentally, may I say at this juncture that the distinguished representatives of India and Pakistan who addressed the council have given a good account of themselves in the presentation of their respective sides. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan, with his sobriety and moderation, has shown himself to be an able spokesman of his country. Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon, whom I have known for many years, has once more demonstrated his keen mind, his dialectic skill and his unsurpassed argumentative power.
The joint communique issued by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan at the end of their meeting in Delhi on 20 August 1953 was a distinct step forward, not merely in its reiteration of the principle of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through a fair and impartial plebiscite and in the decision to have the Plebiscite Administrator appointed by the end of April 1954, but in the common determination to resolve before that date the preliminary issues that had hitherto blocked progress towards the holding of a plebiscite. That the promise of this auspicious agreement between the two Prime Ministers was not fulfilled is to be regretted. It is not for me to say which party is to blame, as I have already stated that the Philippines is not deciding this issue in favour of one nation against another. Rather it is for me to express the hope that the good will and the spirit of conciliation that brought about the agreement and indeed that brought about previous agreements could again be invoked.
It is worthwhile to recall that the basic resolution of the United Nations Commission of 5 January 1949 [S/1196, para. 15] merely incorporated the proposals governing the cessation of hostilities which were explored in conversations between the representatives of India and Pakistan, and later accepted by their respective Governments. Perhaps another attempt at direct conversations on the ministerial level between the two parties is in order. Or perhaps the expert committees brought into being by the joint communique of 20 August 1953, which had covered considerable ground in studying the thorny problem of demilitarisation, could be reactivated.
It is gratifying to note from the statements of the representatives of India and Pakistan that their countries had not withdrawn their acceptance of the basic resolutions of the United Nations Commission of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949. The representative of Pakistan affirms that his Government accepts the basic resolutions of the United Nations Commission as an international obligation. The representative of India affirms that his Government stands by its international standards commitments.
Under the circumstances, my Government entertains the hope that continued and persistent attempts at negotiation between India and Pakistan on the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir cannot but be crowned with eventual success. The recent trade agreement signed by the two countries, so aptly underscored here by the representative of India, is an encouraging sign that they could come together and agree on a satisfactory solution of common problems.
It may have been the original intention of India to seize the Security Council not of a dispute but of a situation which might, by its continuance, endanger the maintenance of peace and security. However, the subsequent filing of a counter complaint by Pakistan has converted the situation into a dispute within the meaning of the Charter. This is affirmed in the resolution of the Council of 21 April 1948 [S/726], in which it is stated that the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security".
There is, however, a disturbing element that has been drawn into the picture which may wreck all prospects of peaceful negotiation or peaceful settlement of the dispute. I refer to the allegation of Pakistan that on Saturday, 26 January, the constitutional step will be taken to integrate the State of Jammu and Kashmir formally into India. The representative of India, on the other hand, states that nothing of the sort is going to happen on 26 January, and that the critical date, if there was one, was 17 November 1956 when certain provisions of the State Constitution took effect, among them, section 3, which states that "The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be integral part of the Union of India''. In view of these two conflicting statements, we have the draft resolution sponsored by five Powers before the Council [S/3778].
Ever since the Security Council was seized of the dispute, it has repeatedly called upon the parties to refrain from any action which might aggravate the situation or which would likely prejudice a just and peaceful settlement of the dispute. On the particular question of the covering of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the All-Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, which was the subject of a previous complaint by Pakistan, the representative of India gave his solemn assurance that the constituent Assembly was not intended to prejudice the issues before the Security Council or to come in its way, and that while the Constituent Assembly might, if it so desired, express an opinion on the question of accession, it could take no decision on it.
The Security Council was explicit in its disapproval of the avowed purpose of the Constituent Assembly to determine the "future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir". The Council's resolution of 30 March 1951 affirmed that any action that the Constituent Assembly might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State, or any part thereof, would violate the agreement principle that :
the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations." [S/2017/Rev. 1.]
Again, on 29 May 1951, at its 548th meeting, the Council approved a message to India and Pakistan which noted with satisfaction the assurances given by the representative of India and stated that it was the sense of the Council that the reports contained in the communications from Pakistan, if correct, would involve procedures in conflict with the commitments of the parties to determine the future accession of Jammu and Kashmir by a fair and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations [548th meeting, para. 89].
I am sure that it would be well to reiterate the considered view of the Security Council on the matter so that there may be no misunderstanding as to its position. That view remains valid even if it is found that the Constituent Assembly had its origins much earlier than the request for its convocation by the General Council of the All-Jammu and Kashmir National Conference. It is for this reason that the Philippines supports and will vote in favour of the five Power draft resolution.
I do not consider a vote in favour of the draft resolution. as a vote against India for the simple reason that it is merely a reiteration of previous resolutions of the Security Council. And I have the highest respect for this august body so that I would not accuse it of bias whenever it approved any resolution which a party might consider adverse to its interests.
In all earnestness I would urge the parties to respect the standing resolutions of the Council, which have not been repealed or modified and are, therefore,/as valid today as when they
were adopted many years ago. Those are the views of the Philippines on this question which has been before this body for quite a time. They have been, I submit, delivered here in the hope that they will help clarify the doubts over the facts of the issue and help this Council arrive at a clear appraisal of the dispute for the sake of a permanent settlement.
We are of Asia, and Pakistan and India are close to us, not only geographically but also by long historic association which has endured through the years. We know that both. India and Pakistan want peace. Our desire is to see the two Governments come to an amicable settlement of their misunderstandings, and I hope to have contributed the efforts of my Government towards that end. With mutual tolerance on the part of the principal parties in this dispute they cannot, my Government trusts, fail to achieve a solution of their problem to their mutual satisfaction and in the best interest of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.