29101957 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Romulo (Philip pines) in the Security Council meeting No. 798 held on 29 October 1957

 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Romulo (Philip pines) in the Security Council meeting No. 798 held on 29 October 1957

I would like to join the other members of the Council in expressing to the representative of Sweden, Ambassador Jarring, my Government's appreciation for the wise and conscientious manner in which he carried out the mission entrusted to him. The tactful and objective terms in which Mr. Jarring's report is couched are such as one would expect from a diplomat of consummate skill indeed, the atmosphere of frankness and cordiality which characterised Mr. Jarring's conversations with the leaders of both India and Pakistan only serves to confirm us in the belief that his inability to report more positive results was in no way due to any lack of resourcefulness, patience or dedication in the pursuit of his mission.

This is why my delegation is constrained to view the report with a feeling of disquiet. The problem of Kashmir has now been before this Council for ten years. The Council has adopted a number of resolutions, and the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13. August 1948 and 5 January 1949, to which both sides stand committed, still await full implementation.

During an interval of five years, between December 1952. and January 1957, the Council even tried the sometimes useful device of allowing the problem to drift, to let the dust of contentious debate settle and thus clear the way for the processes of peaceful negotiation to develop between the parties. But time has brought no healing to this question. Now, as the Council renews its consideration of the Kashmir problem, our feeling of disquiet is heightened not only by the report of Mr. Jarring, but by the burden of the statements recently made to the Council by the spokesmen of Pakistan and India. The problem, needless to say, is an extremely complex one, and the long debates which the Council has held show how many peripheral issues of varying relevancy can be brought into the discussion. But so far as this Council is concerned the basic issues involved are relatively simple, and the actual position is equally uncomplicated. Both India and Pakistan accepted in good faith the

Commission's resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949. Those resolutions provided, first, for a cease-fire, second, for a truce agreement, and third, for a free and impartial plebiscite to determine whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir should accede to Pakistan or to India. The Government of Pakistan should its readiness to comply with the terms of the agreement, and today reaffirmed its oft-expressed desire to proceed to their full implementation. There is no lack of evidence in the records of the Council to support the positive attitude taken by the Government of Pakistan towards. the agreement. Since Pakistan is clearly eager to get on with the plebiscite, it would understandably be equally desirous of observing the terms of the cease-fire and the truce agreement, which are a necessary prerequisite to the plebiscite itself.

The Government of India has contended, and still contends, that Pakistan has failed to implement fully the cease-fire order, and that therefore it cannot agree to the implementation of the truce agreement and the plebiscite. To the proposal of the Council, made through Mr. Jarring, to submit to arbitration the question of whether there has been full compliance with the ceasefire agreement, Pakistan has replied yes, while India holds this is not a matter for arbitration. That is how the question stands at present before the Council.

Our present discussion showed that the disturbing factors come from two sources. One arises from the affirmation in Mr. Jarring's report that:

"The implementation of international agreements of an ad hoc character, which has not been achieved fairly speedily, may become progressively more difficult because the situation with which they were to cope has tended to change." [S/3821, para, 21.]

This is only another way of saying that the agreements of the Commission have reached-if they have not already passed -the point of diminishing returns. The other disturbing factor arises from the statement of the representative of India to the Council on Mr. Menon not only said that the question of the observance of the agreement was not subject to arbitration; he affirmed that:

"There cannot be any question of the violation or any infringement of the issue of sovereignty either in regard to the or the Union as a whole," [795th meeting, para, 18]. and again, that:

"We are not prepared to offer any proposal which in the slightest degree infringes a hair's-breadth of our territory, because that is our national sovereignty, which it is our duty to safeguard and to pass on to succeeding generations." [796th meeting, para, 130].

The objective of the Commission's resolution, which deserves constant repetition, remains that of holding a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations to determine the real wishes of the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is clear that any claim by one party or the other that any portion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is Indian or Pakistan territory would be highly prejudicial to the implementation of the two resolutions adopted by the Commission and accepted by the two parties.

The failure of the parties to agree to his proposals notwithstanding, Mr. Jarring suggests that the Council may wish to take note of expressions of sincere willingness to cooperate with the United Nations in the finding of a peaceful solution, expressions which he received from both Governments. Such expressions of willingness to co-operate would be meaningless. however, unless they were followed by concrete evidence of willingness to reach agreement. Perhaps this avowed mutual desire could be translated into reality if the Council were to urge once again that the parties negotiate anew between themselves. Surely, the least we ought to expect after such categorical Expressions of willingness to cooperate, made to an official representative of this body, would be the restoration of that amicable and conciliatory atmosphere which in previous years resulted in some sort of agreement between the parties. One can almost tread this thought between the lines of Mr. Jarring's very precise report.

Certainly, if the Council is to move forward, it has to do more than note Mr. Jarring's report and express appreciation for his valuable services. My delegation would therefore urge that the Council should continue to press the parties to come together in order to reach an understanding that will serve the interests of peace in a vital area of the globe with sacrificing the legitimate aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. If the suggestion to call upon the United Nations representative for India and Pakistan, Mr. Frank P. Graham, to consult again with the parties for the implementation of the Commission's agreements can help us to reach this objective, the delegation of the Philippines would be happy to support it.

The two governments, I am sure, realise more keenly we do that they cannot permit the situation to deteriorate to such a point as to make conflict inevitable. Yet, each day of stalemate that passes without hope for prospect of solution slowly but surely draws them closer to the abyss. What makes the situation so tragic in the eyes of their neighbours and we are one of them and the rest of the world is that it is so out of character, so foreign to their conception of the virtues that have made the two contending nations great in stature and influence. May not the vision and statesmanship which have given weight to their counsel in the forum of the United Nations be employed to advantage in solving a problem which immediately concerns them and may involve their very survival ?

The Philippines feels a particular concern over this question, which involves two great sister nations of Asia that we admire and respect.

For Pakistan, we are concerned that there shall be increasing respect for the principle of self-determination, which our new countries in Asia and Africa are asking the rest of the world increasingly to respect. For India, we are concerned that her high moral position in world affairs shall not be needlessly compromised by a miscomprehension of her real attitude on the problem of Kashmir.

For both India and Pakistan, we are concerned that these two Asian nations should live together in peace so that, by their words as well as by their example, they can contribute to the building up of a world of peace, order and justice.