1957 10 29 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Walker (Australia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 798 held on 29 October 1957

 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Walker (Australia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 798 held on 29 October 1957

All members of the Security Council are under a debt of gratitude to Mr. Jarring for his report (S/3821), which provides a cogent and perceptive analysis of the issues as he found them in his discussions in Pakistan and India. The Australian delegation considers that Mr. Jarring's report constitutes a fair clarification of these issues, which have also been fully set out by the distinguished spokesmen of Pakistan and India in the Council. The Australian Government has requested me to convey its thanks to Mr. Jarring for his useful contribution to the Security Council's work.

We listened with great interest to the comments on this report by Mr. Firoz Khan Noon, Foreign Minister of Pakistan and Mr. Krishna Menon, Defence Minister of India. Their speeches made many points of force and persuasion and demonstrated once again the event of situation and the feelings it arouses between two nations which are neighbours. This situation is one that distresses many friends of India and Pakistan and particularly countries like Australia, which are fellow members of the Commonwealth and are bent on policies of friendly cooperation with both India and Pakistan.

I do not think that any good purpose would be served by my attempting an elaborate commentary on the speeches made by the representatives of India and Pakistan. These speeches seemed to the Australian delegation to put forward on many points complementary pictures, and in the main a faithful, if distressing, view of the complexity of the issues outstanding between them. Indeed, if I may say so, the two speeches have illustrated one of the major disturbing features of the present situation; that is, the tendency of controversialists in both India and Pakistan to attribute to the Government of the other country a greater degree of responsibility than either may actually have for the statements and at times the actions of religious and political extremists. In this connection we regret that there is, unfortunately, a tendency on each side to attribute bad faith to the other more readily than might be considered justified by an objective observer. I might mention in passing that the Australian delegation shares the view of the United Kingdom delegation that the references by the representative of Pakistan to "the threat of genocide" are not helpful in a situation which understandably causes considerable anxiety. In the same way, Mr. Krishna Menon's description in his statement of the nature of present conditions along the frontier did not seem to us likely to relieve existing tensions.

As other members of the Council, and particularly the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States, have stressed, we must all, especially in the deliberations of the Security Council, endeavour to improve the general atmosphere and to avoid the aggravation of difficulties.

Looking to the future, my Government does not consider that the problems involved in the Kashmir situation can best be tackled by the Security Council's attempting to determine every disputed question of historical fact, or of mixed fact and law. It is apparent, I suggest, to all who have followed the course of these proceedings that pronouncements on such issues would not be likely to provide a solution of the Kashmir problem. Only the parties to the dispute can, in the last resort, provide the solution. It is for this reason, I believe, that the Security Council has never expressed any conclusion on the legal aspects of the original accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or made any adjudication on the question of aggression.

Mr. Jarring reminds us in paragraph 13 of his report that, in the view of India, one of the impediments to the implementation of the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan was that "the Government of India felt aggrieved that the Council had so far not expressed itself on the question of what, in the Indian view, was aggression committed by Pakistan on India" (S/3821, para. 13). I think that the representative of India has himself made this view of his Government perfectly clear to the Council; but I hope that he will understand the attitude of the Council. We have also heard the representative of Pakistan's comments on this part of Mr. Garrison's report, and I trust that Mr. Khan Noon also will not misunderstand me if 1 finds it necessary to remark on a portion of his comments..

Australia was not a member of the Security Council at the time when the Kashmir question was first discussed and the basic resolutions taken, and it would not be appropriate for me to interpret or defend the position adopted by those who were members of the Council at that time. During our membership of the Council we have so for considered that our approach to this issue should be to build upon the past decisions of the Council and of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, and we have accordingly not felt that it would promote a settlement if the Council were now to go over past history and endeavour to determine whether there has been aggression. However, in case the words used by Mr. Khan Noon, namely, that all representatives on the Council "have regarded the Indian allegation as unworthy of consideration" (791st meeting, para. 24), might be interpreted by some persons as indicating that we had pronounced India's complaint to be insubstantial and hence not worth examining, I must say that we have not made any pronouncement at all on this matter, because we do not believe that it would be helpful to do so.

I doubt whether any of us can do more than try to help the parties towards agreement. The only practical basis that seems to be available is to take the Commission's resolutions as a whole without isolating one claim or another in any particular field of disagreement, in the hope that in this way the Council may be able to assist the parties to make some progress towards a solution. The Australian delegation considers that it is in the implementation of these resolutions, or in some amendment that the parties can work out themselves and believe in themselves, that parties must find the path towards resolving their difficulties I might add that this was the opinion expressed by Sri Owen Dixon in his report to the Security Council in 1950 (S/1791) following his visit to the subcontinent.

The Australian delegation therefore fully supports the emphasis laid by other members of the Council the assurances given to Mr. Jarring during his visit to Pakistan and India, regarding the willingness of both Governments to cooperate with the United Nations in finding a peaceful solution of the Kashmir problem within the framework of the agreed resolutions of the Commission. I would stress particularly our support for the interpretation, given in his statement by Sir Pierson Dixon, of part I, paragraph E of the resolution adopted by the Commission on 13 August 1948 (S/1100, para, 75), when he said that in his view this agreement between the parties to promote further negotiations "requires a continuing effort on the part of both Governments, and an effort which should animate them in the whole handling of the situation" (797th meeting, para. 5).

The Australian delegation agrees with the view that, in the light of Mr. Jarring's report and the statements of the Indian and Pakistani representatives, it is a valid concern of the Council to resolve any doubts that may exist whether part I of the resolution of 13 August 1948 remains unimplemented in any respect at this time.

We also share the view that within the farme-work of the Commission's resolutions and of the Security Council's own discussions and resolutions on the subject, a further investigation should now be made on whether some progress can be attempted on the problem of demilitarisation in Kashmir. Plainly, demilitarisation is not going to take place if the parties adopt an "all or nothing" attitude. But if even modest progress is to be made towards the goal contemplated in the two resolutions of the Commission-that is a determination of the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by means of a free and impartial plebiscite then a further attempt to reach agreement between the parties on demilitarisation is the obvious way to proceed.

I would suggest in this connection that there are other factors, besides real or imagined anxieties regarding national security, that call for such an approach. In particular, the need for all possible progress to be made in the rapid economic development of India and Pakistan renders the maintenance of armed forces on the present scale in relation to the Kashmir situation an increasing handicap. There is also the view, which has been so widely expressed in the United Nations, that balanced reductions in armed forces can contribute, perhaps more than anything else, to and increase in mutual confidence between countries' suspicions of each other's intentions. I might add that the Australian delegation has been struck in studying the records of this dispute by the tremendous importance which the Security Council has always attached to measures of demilitarisation as the road to progress towards a solution of the Kashmir problem.

It seems to us, therefore, that the Council would be wise to take up the suggestion made by the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States at the 797th meeting that it would be appropriate in present circumstances for the Council to call upon the United Nations representative for India and Pakistan, Dr. Frank P. Graham, to consult again with the parties in order to bring about progress towards full implementation of the resolutions adopted by the Commission for India and Pakistan. The Australian delegation has the greatest respect for Dr. Graham, who, in his long years connected with the United Nations, has become well known to us in our part of the world. We agree with the United States representative that the Council should express its confidence that Dr. Graham can perform another valuable service for the Council and, more importantly, for India and Pakistan themselves, if the two Governments concerned will agree to receive him and to consult with him in good faith in a renewed effort to reach an early agreement on this problem.