29101957 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Nunez Portuondo (Cuba) in the Security Council Meeting No. 798 held on 29 October 1957

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

The Cuban Government wishes to congratulate the representative of Sweden, Mr. Gunnar Jarring, on his skilful handling of the difficult mission entrusted to him by the Security Council. His report, which has been very carefully read and studied by us, gives a clear account of the present position of the Governments of India and Pakistan on the question of Jammu and Kashmir.

We have also listened with great interest to all the oral statements of the representatives of Pakistan and India, analysed them and perused, in so far as possible, the innumerable documents contained in the file on this question. There is no need for us to stress again our great esteem for the peoples of India and Pakistan, with whose respective Governments the Government of Cuba maintains very cordial diplomatic relations.

As the Cuban delegation sees it, there was agreement on this problem at one moment; not only between the Governments of Pakistan and India, but also in the United Nations, as represented by the Security Council, which applied the clear and categorical provisions of the Charter. This was when both Governments made public statements agreeing that the people of Kashmir should freely determine their own future and decide by means of a free plebiscite whether they would accede to India or to Pakistan. This happened on 13 January 1949 (399th meeting), when the Council took note of the report of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (S/1196), giving notice of the acceptance by the Governments of India and Pakistan of the resolutions adopted by the Commission on 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 determining the procedure and establishing the stages for holding the plebiscite, which, we repeat, was accepted by both Governments.

It was after this that the difficulties arose. Nevertheless, up to this very moment we have not heard it stated clearly and categorically nor have we been informed in any official document that the Government of India or the Government of Pakistan refuses to fulfil its offer that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should decide their own final destiny. It appears to us that this point is extremely important, of great legal and particularly moral value. We realise that the passage of time has made fulfilment of the agreement more difficult, but we must also add that it does not make it impossible. Moreover, in our opinion, the Security Council has no alternative but to try, through all possible legal means in its power, to ensure that the people concerned have the last word, expressing their view beyond any doubt by means of a legally and impartially held plebiscite.

Any other course would mean a revision of our agreements or a refusal to carry out obligations, and this the Security Council cannot accept.

We have given consideration and study to all the arguments advanced by the Indian Government; but, in our opinion, none of them is sufficiently weighty to prevent the people of Jammu and Kashmir from deciding their own destiny in the final instance. Besides, we repeat, we have neither heard nor read that the Government of India refuses to fulfil the undertakings it voluntarily accepted.

The Indian Government had adduced one argument which we consider important. We are referring to India's affirmation. that this question of Kashmir was brought before the United Nations by the Government of India itself on 1 January 1948, under Article 35 of the Charter, when it accused Pakistan on committing acts of aggression against it. The Cuban delegation considers that the Council implicitly settled this question by its resolutions subsequent to that date. Moreover, the very fact that India, on 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, accepted agreements to resolve the problem through a free plebiscite in which the people of Jammu and Kashmir would decide their own future, logically and legally bars the Security Council from a decision on the original accusation which subsequent events and situations rendered inoperative. The very procedure proposed by the Commission and accepted by Pakistan and India, we repeat, implicitly resolved the question of the alleged aggression, even if the charge had been fully proved.

Another very important argument of the Indian Government relates to the need to guarantee the withdrawal of the armed forces of Pakistan. The offer of the Government of Pakistan to withdraw its forces and replace them by United Nations troops (791s meeting, para, 79) in our opinion constitutes a constructive and encouraging approach. The plebiscite would be made more feasible by simultaneous or subsequent withdrawal of Indian military forces.

In our opinion, the fact that Pakistan belongs to a defensive military alliance such as is constituted by the Baghdad Pact has no relation to the problem under discussion. We have no report of a single act of aggression committed in the name of the Baghdad Pact. Cuba also belongs, and has belonged for many years, to an inter-American defensive; that alliance also has never been accused of committing a single act of aggression against another nation. It is practically impossible for defensive alliances, under the terms of their agreements and in the case of States that are really independent and sovereign, to be used for aggressive purposes, because the other contracting parties would obviously not countenance any act of aggression.

The Cuban delegation considers that, despite all the obstacles, the Security Council must go on working calmly and cautiously to ensure that ultimately the plebiscite is held under the agreed conditions. We are concerned with two States, India and Pakistan, which are kinsmen and neighbours. We should all do our utmost to bring about the solution of a problem which cannot continue without ultimately endangering the peace. These are two Governments worthy of our respect which have always fulfilled their obligations in the United Nations, and which have proclaimed and defended the principle of the self determination of peoples, inasmuch as our goal is self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, we believe that the task of the Security Council becomes less difficult.