Text of the Speech made by Mr. Lodge (United the States of America) in the Security Council meeting No. 768 held on 15 February 1957.
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Lodge (United the States of America) in the Security Council meeting No. 768 held on 15 February 1957.
In its resolution of 25 January 1957 [S/3779] the Security Council reminded the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle contained in previous resolutions of the Security Council:
" 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."
The Security Council also reaffirmed that action by the Kashmir Constituent Assembly to determine the affiliation of the State would not constitute a disposition of it in accordance
with this principle. At that time the Council did not consider what further action might be desirable from the point of view of facilitating a settlement of this dispute between India and Pakistan.
In closing my remarks to the Council on 24 January, I observed that the United States considered that: "In the absence of a direct mutually acceptable agreement between the parties, the Council has an obligation to continue its efforts, as it has in the past, to seek and to support any fruitful suggestion in this difficult case.' [765th meeting, para. 51].
At the suggestion of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan, Mr. Frank Graham, who, let me say, has served the United Nations with distinction and skill in more than one difficult problem in addition to having a record of distinguished service in his own country, the parties to the dispute undertook direct negotiations in 1953. These negotiations were not successful.
Thus the Council again has a positive duty to assist the parties in finding a just and equitable solution. The Security Council's overriding endeavour in connection with Kashmir has always been to secure an amicable settlement acceptable to both parties. In doing this, it has sought to build upon the gains which have been made in the past and upon agreements which have been reached by the parties. As the Secretary of State of State of the United States said on 5 February 1957 at a press conference:
"We continue to believe that unless the parties are able to agree upon some other solution, the solution which was recommended by the Security Council should prevail, which is that there should be a plebiscite."
We listened attentively to the forthright presentations of the representatives of India and Pakistan with this in mind. We were pleased to find that a common basis for agreement still exists upon which the Security Council can build in its efforts to assist the parties in finding a pacific solution. One basis for agreement is the continued recognition by the parties of their international obligations under the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan dated 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949. Affirmations of this adherence were made by the representative of Pakistan at the 766th meeting and by the representative of India at the 767th meeting.
The representative of Pakistan stated: "The only international obligations which the Governments of India and Pakistan have undertaken in regard to the Kashmir dispute are embodied in the two resolutions. of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 's [766 meeting, para. 4,]
The representative of India stated:
"These are the engagements. If they were of a formal character, they might be treaties, but, at any rate, they are the engagements we have entered into the resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949." [767th meeting, para. 97.] What do these resolutions call for? The resolution of 13 August 1948 sets out in successive stages a cease-fire, a truce agreement and the determination of the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people. The resolution of January 1949 states that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. It also specifies methods through which this plebiscite should be organised. This, then, is the first solid basis of agreement from which the Security Council can proceed.
Another important fact on which the Council can build is the realisation by both parties that one of the chief barriers to the full carrying out of these resolutions is the failure to achieve demilitarisation. This is the central problem involved in the truce section of the resolution of 13 August 1948 and has been recognized in the statements of both parties as a crucial problem in carrying out the resolutions. In this sense the question appears before the Council fundamentally in the same light as it did when we were previously called upon to discuss the matter.
The long and energetic efforts of Mr. Frank Graham, the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan, removed many obstacles to the achievement of demilitarisation. However, it has not been possible for him so far to achieve a final agreement; nor did it prove possible for the parties, the last time they undertook negotiations, to come to final conclusions. It is, therefore, on demilitarisation that the discussions of the representatives of India and Pakistan have largely turned and it is to this that the Council needs largely to address itself.
We welcome the assurances of both representatives of their continued respect for and adherence to these international engagements. We hope both parties will do their utmost to consult in good faith to implement the obligations they have assumed, and in which the Security Council has played such an important role. We recognize that the opinions of the representatives of India and Pakistan differ considerably on many of the details of these obligations, on the reasons for the failure to achieve demilitarisation and on the elements that would bring it about in an equitable fashion. However, the Security Council has previously expressed its view on many of these points.
The draft resolution which has been introduced by the Governments of Australia, Cuba, the United Kingdom and the United States(S/3787) builds upon these points of agreement. It thus lays considerable stress on the importance of achieving demilitarisation. Four of the preambular paragraphs refer to this problem.
The task which we are suggesting that the Security Council assign to its President also emphasises the efforts to achieve demilitarisation. In this connection, a proposal has already been put forward as a suggestion by which the present deadlock might be broken. This was the proposal of the representative of Pakistan at the 761st meeting, reiterated at the 766th meeting, to the following effect :
"The functions of protecting the State and ensuring internal security should be entrusted by the Council to a United Nations Force which should be introduced into the area at once." [761st meeting, para. 112.]
We have thought it desirable to note this proposal by the representative of Pakistan for the use of a temporary United Nations force in connection with demilitarisation. We have not, however, attempted to express a final judgement on this proposal but have stated the belief that the use of such a force would deserve consideration that is all, would deserve consideration in so far as it might contribute to the achievement of demilitarisation as envisaged in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and toward the pacific settlement of the dispute. We would hope that the President of the Security Council could explore this proposal further with the Governments of India and Pakistan with a view to examining its utility and determining the extent to which it might be employed. If the United Nations force would be of value in assisting in the demilitarisation or a basic settlement of the dispute, I am sure all of us would agree that it would deserve consideration. We have, therefore, listed a temporary United Nations force as one of the elements which need to be borne in mind in making a new. attempt to achieve a settlement.
Considering the complexity of the Kashmir issue and the length of time since the Council last dealt with it, however, we have suggested that the primary action of the Security Council at this time to request the President of the Security Council to examine with the two Governments proposals which he thinks are likely to contribute to demilitarisation or to establishing other conditions for settling the dispute. This gives the President sufficient flexibility to produce positive results in bringing the parties together.
As I indicated earlier, the United States believes that we must build upon the gains which have been made before. The President, in undertaking this mission, is accordingly to do so having regard to the resolutions which have been adopted on Kashmir by the Security Council and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. He is also to bear in mind the statements of the parties and specifically the proposal for a United Nations force. As the President of the Council, he will also no doubt bear in mind the statements of the members of the Council.
The resolution authorised his travel to the sub-continent and requested him to report back as soon as possible but not later than 15 April 1957. By sending one of its highest ranking representatives, the United Nations will show its serious concern over the continued deadlock in the achievement of demilitarisation and a plebiscite and provide an opportunity for full and detailed consideration of means through which progress might be made. The word "achievement" and the word "progress" are important elements of the operative paragraph inasmuch as they express the hope of the sponsors that the President will be able to report new progress when he has completed his assignment. We are particularly fortunate to have as President of the Security Council the eminent representative of Sweden, Mr. Gunnar Jarring. We urge him to accept this great responsibility. Mr. Jarring is unusually well qualified for this assignment, having been his country's representative both to India and to Pakistan. He thus will carry with him not only his experience as President of the Security Council and representative of Sweden in the United Nations but also a first-hand knowledge of India and Pakistan and a friendship with the leaders of both countries. We appeal to the Governments of both India and Pakistan to receive him cordially and in accordance with their traditions of international cooperation. We believe that both parties, by virtue of their expressed attitude towards the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions, should discuss with the President of the Security Council detailed proposals and plans for achieving demilitarisation and the establishment of conditions for progress towards the settlement of the dispute.
Finally, the draft resolution requests the Secretary General and the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to render the President of the Security Council such assistance as he may request in connection with this special assignment. The United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan has played a significant role in narrowing the differences between the two Governments on practical measures for bringing about the truce and demilitarisation stages preparatory to a plebiscite. I am sure the President of the Security Council would want to draw heavily upon the reports which he has made to the Council, to obtain his advice and counsel before undertaking explorations with the parties. We hope that Mr. Graham, who has served the United Nations self-effacingly and effectively for many years in seeking a pacific settlement of this dispute, will be able to put himself at the disposal of the President of the Security Council for such assistance as he may need in the coming weeks.
To conclude, the United States believes that the present draft resolution offers the most promising and judicious course for the Security Council to follow at this time. We hope that the other members of the Council will support it.