Text of the speech made by Mr. Sobolev (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 773 held one 20 February 1957
Text of the speech made by Mr. Sobolev (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 773 held one 20 February 1957
I should like briefly to explain the Soviet Union delegation's motives in voting against the draft resolution submitted by Australia, Cuba, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
The delegation of the Soviet Union introduced three amendments to the draft resolution. As I pointed out in my principal statement [770th meeting, paras. 134 to 147], the purpose of those amendments was to eliminate from the draft resolution those provisions which were at variance
with the United Nations Charter and also a provision which was unacceptable to one of the parties concerned, India. Our contention was that the Security Council, in requesting its President to examine the situation which has arisen in connection with the Kashmir problem, could not at the same time take a stand in its resolution on the side of one of the parties directly. concerned, namely, Pakistan. Such an approach would not be objective, but would make matters extremely awkward for the President of the Security Council in carrying out his mission.
In their draft resolution, the representatives of the Western Powers have in fact attempted to make the mission of the President of the Security Council contingent on a number of provisions which are in conflict with the Charter and which have been rejected by one of the parties, India. First and foremost among these provisions is the matter of sending United Nations troops to Kashmir for the purpose of holding a plebiscite. The Charter of the United Nations, however, provides clearly and unmistakably that United Nations armed forces may be used solely for the purpose of repelling aggression and restoring international peace. The dispatch of a United Nations force to permit the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir would be contrary to the Charter and would be insulting to the national pride of the people of Kashmir.
The Security Council cannot disregard the fact that India, one of the parties directly concerned, is categorically opposed to the idea of sending United Nations troops to Kashmir. The draft resolution of the Western Powers also completely disregarded the statements of the representative of India, Г Krishna Menon, pointing out how the Kashmir situation had changed since the Security Council adopted its resolution in 1948 concerning the holding of a plebiscite. An attempt to impose upon a Member of the United Nations a solution with which it was not in agreement would forsome the mission of the President of the Security Council concerning measures to bring about a peaceful settlement within the terms of Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter. In presenting its amendments to the four-Power draft resolution, the Soviet delegation sincerely hoped that the co sponsors of the draft resolution would carefully examine those amendments and take steps to reach a solution which would be acceptable to the two parties concerned-India and Pakistan and would not tie the hands of the President of the Security Council by giving him instructions which had been rejected by one of the parties directly concerned. To a large extent, the amendments proposed by the delegation of Colombia served the same end. That was the reason why the Soviet delegation, in the interests of reaching an agreed decision, abstained in the vote on the Colombian amendments.
Unfortunately, the Soviet delegation's amendments, like those of the Colombian delegation, were rejected by the sponsors of the draft resolution and the Soviet Union was compelled to vote against the draft resolution submitted for the Council's consideration by the delegations of Australia, Cuba, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
I can assure the members of the Council that, if it should be necessary, the Soviet delegation will again vote against any draft resolution which is contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter.
I should add that the real aims of the sponsors of the draft resolution just rejected by the Council were revealed by the representative of the United States, Mr. Barco, just now in introducing a new draft resolution. I would say that these aims have nothing in common with co-operation between the Members of the United Nations. There was no need for a vote against or a rejection of this draft resolution, which clearly did not have the support of all the interested parties. And yet the representatives of the Western Powers pressed the matter to a vote. They had to get yet another Soviet "veto" to add to the list which they are keeping. It is quite obvious that such. tactics in the Security Council are wholly at variance with the principles of the Charter, which provides that the permanent members of the Council, who have primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, are, by virtue of their position, under the obligation to reach a form of agreement which will not prevent the Council from discharging its duties but will help it to discharge them to the extent necessary for giving effect to the principles of the United Nations Charter. I wish to repeat that the delegation of the USSR is not at all disturbed by the fact that it was compelled to vote against the draft resolution, since that text is contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter.
120. Text of the speech made by Mr Walker (Australia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 773 held on 29 February 1957
The Australian delegation deplores the Soviet Union veto of the draft resolution which commanded nine votes in the Council. We do not agree for a moment with the remarks made by the Soviet Union representative when he suggested that the draft resolution which he had defeated was contrary to the terms and spirit of the Charter; nor would I consider it worth spending any time in discussing his suggestion that the purpose of that draft resolution was to bring about another Soviet veto. It was the deep and earnest hope of my delegation-and, I am sure, of the other delegations which supported it-that the draft resolution would be carried and would pave the way for a very useful work by our President in relation to the problem of Kashmir.
We would not wish to see the firm desire of the Council to assist toward a solution of this problem completely frustrated by the Soviet veto, and we have, therefore, joined in sponsoring the new draft resolution which has just now been circulated [S/3792 and Corr. 1].
There is general agreement in the Council regarding the value of a visit by yourself, Mr. President, and your taking up with the Governments of India and Pakistan any proposals that in your view might lead to some progress in dealing with this difficult problem. The representative of India has assured us that our President will be welcome at any time, even though the terms of his mission may have to be considered within their political context.
As the draft resolution is now drafted, it gives to the President a free hand in selecting proposals for examination with the Governments of India and Pakistan, and the draft resolution, in that way, expresses the full confidence that we have in our distinguished President to handle this particular matter.
The views of the Australian on the method of the plebiscite and on the desirability of concentrating upon reaching agreement on appropriate measures of demilitarisation as a necessary preliminary have already been stated in the Council [768th meeting, paras, 52 and 53], and my delegation would hope that they would be borne in mind by the President when he undertakes this mission.
I very much hope that the Council will be able to adopt the draft resolution that has now been submitted by the United Kingdom and the United States along with Australia.
121. Text of the speech made by the President Mr. Gunnar Jarring as representative of Sweden in the Security Council Meeting No. 773 held on 20 February 1957
If no other member of the Council wishes to speak, I shall speak in my capacity as representative of Sweden.
Speaking now as the representative of SWEDEN, I wish to explain my vote. Although, obviously, I voted in my capacity as representative of Sweden, the task which would have been entrusted to me under the four Power draft resolutions, as well as under the amendments, had either one of them been adopted, would have put me personally in a special position. Thus, when I abstained in the voting, I did this on the ground that I did not want my vote to be construed in any way to prejudice my mission.
I feel convinced that my colleagues on the Council will agree with me that the new development in the India-Pakistan question will require further study and reflection. Speaking as PRESIDENT, I therefore suggest that this meeting be adjourned until tomorrow afternoon, if there is no objection.