Text of the Speech made by Mr. Jawad (Iraq) in the Security Council Meeting No. 773 held on 20 February 1957

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Jawad (Iraq) in the Security Council Meeting No. 773 held on 20 February 1957

I shall be very brief, as I shall confine my observations to the joint draft resolution submitted by Australia, Cuba, the United Kingdom and the United States [S/3787] and to the two amendments, one submitted by the Soviet Union (S/3789] and the other by Colombia [S/3791/Rev. 1].

Our opinion regarding the amendments submitted by the Soviet Union depends upon three important considerations : first, our understanding and appraisal of the nature of the problem now before the Council; secondly, whether or not the parts of the joint draft resolution submitted by the four Powers which are to be amended do reflect the real situation from the historical and actual standpoints; thirdly, whether the omission of those parts of the joint draft resolution would contribute to the attainment of the objectives the Council has in view in dealing with the problem at present.

We have already stated our opinion on the nature of the dispute [769th meeting, paras. 1 to 27], and there is no need to repeat now what we have already said. We believe that the previous resolutions of the Security Council and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan form the basis for settling the dispute. These decisions are, we feel, in conformity with the principles of the Charter. Thus, the decisions not only constitute the appropriate approach to a solution of the problem, but also represent the authority of the Council and the consequences which would follow upon the implementation. of and respect for the resolutions.

The first paragraph of the preamble to the joint draft resolution seems to cover this phase of the matter, as we see it. The remaining six paragraphs of the preamble represent, in our view, a statement of fact with regard to the Council's consideration of the problem. They take note of the statements of the representatives of India and Pakistan and of the lack of progress achieved in settling the dispute. They also recognize a fact which is, in our opinion, of extreme importance, concerning the steps which should be taken in settling the dispute - that is, the demilitarisation of Kashmir as a prerequisite for the holding of a plebiscite and concerning the operations which constitute a single and continuous process. The proposal regarding the use of a temporary United Nations force is included in the preamble only as a proposal to be examined by the President of the Council in his efforts to promote conditions. leading to the demilitarisation of the State in preparation for a free and impartial plebiscite. No one doubts that the formation and use of such a force should be in conformity with the principles of the Charter.

In the light of those remarks, we believe that the seven paragraphs of the preamble of the joint draft resolution not only reflect the true picture of the situation under consideration, but also provide a clear directive to the President of the Council. Thus, to delete the preamble and replace it by the suggested amendment would seem to ignore certain historical facts of the dispute; to omit the basic process for settling the dispute, as decided upon by the Council; and to present the dispute in a completely new context. For that reason, we find it difficult to agree to the substitution of the text contained in paragraph 1 of document S/3789 for the present preamble of the joint draft resolution.

From our remarks concerning the necessity of including in the preamble statements on the nature of the dispute and the method to be used in settling it, it follows that it is imperative to include in the operative part of the draft resolution a provision concerning what is called the single and continuous process, that is, demilitarisation as a precondition to the plebiscite. We feel, again, that paragraph 2 of the amendments proposed by the USSR in document S/3789 does not meet the requirements of the case and does not refer to the method envisaged for its settlement

With regard to paragraph 3 of the amendments proposed by the USSR [S/3789] we feel, as we have already stated [769th meeting, para. 25], that the time-limit set for the President of the Council to carry out his mission and report to the Council is rather short; we should have liked to see provision made for a longer period of time. Nevertheless, in view of the importance and urgency of the question and past experience in this connection, to omit any reference to a definite date for reporting to the Council might not reflect the concern felt by the Council about settling the dispute. Consequently, we feel that the amendment as presently drafted does not meet the requirements of the situation.

Although the amendment to the preamble of the draft resolution [S/3791/Rev. 1, para 1] submitted by Colombia does recall previous resolutions adopted on the problem, it does not provide a sufficient indication of the importance which the Council attaches to settling the question at the present time. Furthermore, it omits any reference to the way in which the Council views the method of settling the dispute. We do find ourselves in agreement with a number of the points in the proposed Colombian amendment to operative paragraph 1 of the joint draft resolution [S/3791/Rev. 1, para. 2]. Nevertheless, it seems that the adoption of the amendment concerning the possibility of referring the problem to the International Court of Justice would constitute an obvious deviation from the procedure accepted and followed by the Security Council and the United Nations Commission for India, and Pakistan and from the way in which those two bodies have treated the problem. For these reasons, my delegation is unable to agree to these two amendments.

We do, however, agree with the third amendment [S/3791/Rev. 1, para. 3] concerning the time to be allowed for the President of the Security Council to complete his mission.

The present consideration of the question by the Security Council does not in any way exclude the use of other methods for settling the differences. My delegation remains open-minded about examining and supporting new proposals, provided that such proposals, on the one hand, would constitute positive steps towards decreasing the tension in the area and settling the dispute, and, on the other hand, would not depart from the essence of the problem, as formulated in the decisions of the Security Council and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, and would be in accordance with the spirit of the United Nations Charter.

Before concluding, I should like to refer to the statement made by the representative of India this morning in connection with his reference to a statement which I had made at a previous meeting of the Council [772nd meeting, paras. 87 ff.]. It had not been my intention either to raise this matter or to refer to it here in the Council. I believe that Mr. Krishna Menon is a refined and accomplished lawyer and diplomat and would not wish-even when he differs with others-to express himself in the way in which his words were interpreted both here and outside the Council. Unfortunately, however, this is what has happened, and what has been repeated. It is perhaps due to the fact that the English language is so rich that it is open to various interpretations; that is probably what has caused this misunderstanding Nevertheless, Mr. Krishna Menon has now clarified the matter to the satisfaction of all concerned.

I should like to assure him that we have a great admiration for his wide and profound knowledge of international law tion and international relations. This admiration, however, does not prevent us from differing with him on certain matters. I refer in particular to the position we have taken with regard to the Kashmir dispute. Although Mr. Krishna Menon believes that, in our treatment, we have ignored the circumstances of the case and have not been neutral, I should like to assure him that my Government attaches the greatest importance to settling the dispute by peaceful means. Perhaps more than anyone else, he must realise that the only way for small States to survive and achieve progress and prosperity is through observing the law of nations and standing behind the letter and spirit of the Charter. That is what we have done in supporting the Council's decisions on Kashmir. Despite the differences regarding this problem, we still hope that the genius of India and Pakistan will find a way to settle the problem in accordance with law and justice.