Text of Speech made by Mr. Sobolev (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 773 held on 20 February 1957

 Text of Speech made by Mr. Sobolev (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 773 held on 20 February 1957

I shall be brief. I wish merely to make a few observations on the statements made at the 772nd meeting by the representatives of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia concerning the amendments proposed by the Soviet delegation [S/3789].

Mr. Walker, the representative of Australia, and Sir Pierson Dixon, the representative of the United Kingdoms have questioned the consistency of the Soviet delegation's attitude on the question of Kashmir since we say that the Kashmir question has already been decided by the Kashmir people and, at the same time, we agree with the proposal that Mr. Jarring, the President of the Security Council, should endeavour to assist in the settlement of the existing dis agreement between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir question.

The representative of Australia finds something contradictory in this, that one thing, so to speak, excludes the other. I must inform Mr. Walker that there is nothing contradictory in this position. The Soviet Union does in fact consider that the question of Kashmir has been settled by the Kashmir people, but the situation is complicated by the fact that Kashmir lies on the frontier between India and Pakistan and that part of the territory of Kashmir is administered by the authorities of Pakistan and not of India. This in itself makes differences of opinion between the two States on the Kashmir question a foregone conclusion. It is these differences of opinion that should be discussed and that we are discussing here.

Since these differences between the two States exist, the Soviet Union considers that they should be settled by peaceful means, in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. In our opinion, the most direct approach is that of bilateral negotiations, with regard to which India and Pakistan have not exhausted all possible means and methods. We believe that this is the most promising approach to the peaceful settlement of this question.

In this connexion, the proposal that the Security Council should request its President, Mr. Jarring, to examine with the Governments of India and Pakistan the existing situation and proposals which might lead to a peaceful settlement of existing differences, could, in our opinion, be useful if all the other members of the Council concurred. It would appear, in fact, that all the members of the Security Council as well as the two parties concerned agree that such a mission by Mr. Jarring could be useful. The only question, therefore, is how Mr. Jarring's task should be formulated-what he should be asked to do in this matter. It is on this question that we are in fundamental disagreement with the sponsors of the draft resolution.

What is the nature of this disagreement? The representatives of the United States and of the United Kingdom are correct in pointing out that the basic difference is on the question the United Nations force. The United States representative considers it desirable-that is the word he used that the Security Council resolution containing the instructions to its President should include a reference to the force of the United Nations [772nd meeting, para. 113]. I should like to ask what "desirable" means in this connection. Does the Security Council endorse the idea of using a United Nations force in Kashmir, and if so, for what purpose? With what object should a United Nations force go there? What would be its mission? The draft resolution we are now considering has nothing to say on the subject.

The United States representative feels that this idea not only deserves to be mentioned but should also be the subject of a recommendation-that it merits further development. If, in the matter of United Nations armed forces, the Security Council wished to act in full conformity with the Charter, it would have to state for what purpose and with what object such forces were being assigned to Kashmir. The United Nations Charter envisages only one task for armed forces of the United Nations that of repelling aggression and restoring international peace in this or that part of the world.

I should like to be shown where in the Charter it is provided that the armed forces of the United Nations may be used. for any other purpose. Article 2 is the only Article of the Charter which refers to the use of armed forces of the United. Nations. The relevant Articles which precede it refer specifically to the repelling of aggression and the restoration of international peace. No other tasks are provided for in the Charter.

Why then should armed forces be sent to Kashmir ? The draft resolution has nothing to say on this subject, but from the statements made here it is evident that they are to go in order to hold what is called a "plebiscite". I contend that the Charter nowhere provides for the use of United Nations armed forces for such a purpose as the holding of a plebiscite in any country Accordingly, the proposal to send armed forces to Kashmir is contrary to the principles of the Charter. The Soviet delegation believes that it is not proper for the Security Council to take decisions which are in conflict with the Charter This is the principal reason for our amendments to the proposals of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Cuba, to delete the provisions concerning the sending of armed forces to Kashmir.

We have been told that by submitting those amendments we are not showing a constructive approach. This is allegedly evidence that we are hindering the peaceful settlement of the disagreement between India and Pakistan on the question of he is mission ? The draft resolution we are now considering has nothing to say on the subject. The United States representative feels that this idea not only deserves to be mentioned but should also be the subject of a recommendation-that it merits further development. If, in the matter of United Nations armed forces, the Security Council wished to act in full conformity with the Charter, it would I have to state for what purpose and with what object such forces were being assigned to Kashmir. The United Nations Charter envisages only one task for armed forces of the United Nations: that of repelling aggression and restoring international peace in this or that part of the world.

I should like to be shown where in the Charter it is provided that the armed forces of the United Nations may be used for any other purpose. Article 2 is the only Article of the Charter which refers to the use of armed forces of the United Nations. The relevant Articles which precede it refer specifically to the repelling of aggression and the restoration of international peace. Charter.

No other tasks are provided for in the Why then should armed forces be sent to Kashmir? The draft resolution has nothing to say on this subject, but from the statements made here it is evident that they are to go in order to hold what is called a "plebiscite". I contend that the Charter nowhere provides for the use of United Nations armed forces for such a purpose as the holding of a plebiscite in any country. Accordingly, the proposal to send armed forces to Kashmir is contrary to the principles of the Charter. The Soviet delegation believes that it is not proper for the Security Council to take decisions which are in conflict with the Charter. This is the principal reason for our amendments to the proposals of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Cuba, to delete the provisions concerning the sending of armed forces to Kashmir.

We have been told that by submitting those amendments we are not showing a constructive approach. This is allegedly evidence that we are hindering the peaceful settlement of the disagreement between India and Pakistan on the question of Kashmir. But this is not true. Along with other members of the Security Council, we accept the basic idea that the President of the Security Council should, together with the Governments of India and Pakistan, consider possible ways of peaceful solution to this problem. I think there can be hardly anyone who is not convinced that the use of armed forces would not lead to a peaceful solution. On the contrary, their use would be evidence that enforcement measures were being applied. The Security Council has right to apply enforcement measures, but only in certain cases, in the specific cases prescribed by the Charter. In the present instance, the Security Council has embarked on such a course. Hence, there is no justification whatsoever for taking a decision to use a United Nations force in Kashmir.

We may be told that we are not taking a decision on the use of the armed forces and that we merely wish to explore the problem. But that is the whole point of the matter: the effect of this "exploration" will be that the Security Council will in fact be approving the idea, with a view to its implementation. Otherwise, it is impossible to understand the purpose of such a decision.

I understand why the sponsors of the draft resolution reject the amendments of the Soviet Union. It is probably because they believe that anything which comes from the Soviet Union is bad and is not intended to contribute to a constructive settlement of the problem. But, in that case, why do they reject the amendment proposed by Colombia? Is it not because those amendments, too, exclude Security Council approval of the proposal for the use of a United Nations force? Or perhaps because the Colombian amendments refer to the use of a United Nations force with the approval of the two parties? The amendment reads: "if accepted by the parties." Perhaps that is the crux of the matter. Nothing has been said about this here.

I conclude from this that the rejection of the Soviet amendments is not due to the fact that they conflict with the purposes of a peaceful settlement of the differences between. India and Pakistan but rather to other considerations which have nothing to do with our task or with the principles of the United Nations Charter

The Soviet delegation's only consideration in introducing its amendments was the desire to further the adoption by the Security Council of a decision which would be acceptable to both parties concerned and which would make it possible to arrive at a peaceful solution of the existing disagreement which might otherwise develop into a more serious problem, requiring other and more serious measures for its solution.

As long as we keep within the framework of a peaceful solution, the situation is not such that we need by very greatly disturbed. However, we have been informed by both parties that troop concentrations are taking place on both sides. This is a matter to which we must pay attention. If it is really the Security Council's intention to work for a peaceful solution of this dispute, it should not press for the dispatch of a United Nations force to Kashmir as a method of solution. In our opinion, such a proposal can lead to nothing good in the present case.