20111957 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Romulo (Philippines) in the Security Council Meeting No. 804 held on 20 November 1957
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Romulo (Philippines) in the Security Council Meeting No. 804 held on 20 November 1957
The Philippine delegation has co-sponsored, with the delegations of Australia, Colombia, the United Kingdom and the United States, the draft resolution which appears in document S/3911. At the present stage which we have reached in the discussion of the India-Pakistan question, we are bound to consider what action the Council can take that would most likely promote a solution to the dispute.
One course of action would be to prolong the debate indefinitely. It would not be difficult to do this. of our current meetings, as well as of our meetings at the beginning of the year, show that the argumentation can proceed in an endless series of statements, replies and rebuttals, large portions of which have little or no relevance to the heart of the controversy. Obviously, the Council cannot follow this course, nor would such a course be in the long-term interest of either of the parties to the dispute.
Perhaps we could decide at a certain point in the lengthening series of rebuttals to bring the debate to an end without adopting any resolution or by approving a resolution. so innocuous that it would amount to the same thing. Unfortunately, this is a question that cannot be dealt with in this manner. The great wound that is Kashmir remains an open wound and there is no sign that it will heal of itself.
Moreover, the Council did try, between the years 1952. and 1957, to submit the dispute to the process of direct negotiations between India and Pakistan. This method brought no satisfactory results.
The original complaint and counter-complaint by which the Council has been seized of this question may, of course, be withdrawn by the parties to the dispute. Or, the question may be removed from the agenda of the Council and brought to the floor of the General Assembly. In either case, action can be taken only on the express desire of the parties themselves. Therefore, unless and until there is a change of venue or there are positive signs that the question is being resolved through direct negotiations between the parties, the Council has a duty under the Charter to take necessary measures to alleviate tension in the disputed area and to promote a just and peaceful solution of the conflict.
Neither India nor Pakistan can possibly desire that this question should fester indefinitely. We are equally certain that neither of them would seek a solution by means of a fait accomplish either through force of arms or through failure of the Council to act. It is in this belief that the Philippine delegation has joined in co-sponsoring the draft resolution before the Council. This proposal seeks, through the intermediary of Mr. Frank P. Graham, the United Nations representative for India and Pakistan, to explore the possibilities for further action in connexion with part I of the resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948 [S/1100, para, 75], and to enter into negotiations with the Governments of India and Pakistan in order to implement part II of the resolution.
The spokesmen for India and Pakistan have affirmed that their respective Governments stand engaged by the Commission's resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 [S/1196, para, 15]. It is gratifying to note that, through the long polemics of this debate, nothing has been said to indicate that either India or Pakistan desires to denounce those agreements or that it considers itself absolved of the obligation which it has contracted thereunder. We have heard it argued that one party or the other has failed to abide by certain terms of the agreement, and we have heard it said also that the agreements may become progressively more difficult to implement because of the changed and changing elements of the situation in Kashmir. But neither India nor Pakistan has taken the position that the agreements have lapsed, as it were, by prescription and should, therefore, be regarded as null and void. On the contrary, we have received fresh assurances from both Governments that it is their desire to seek a solution of their dispute on the basis of the agreements set forth in the Commission's resolutions on the sole condition that the measures contemplated therein shall be taken, step by step, in strict logical sequence.
It was on this understanding that the Council decided in February 1957 to entrust Mr. Jarring with a mission to proceed to the sub-continent. It is on this same understanding that it is now proposed to Mr. Graham. entrust a similar mission to
The ultimate objective of both missions remains the same, namely, to explore with the Governments of India and Pakistan any proposals which are likely to contribute towards the settlement of the dispute. Under this general mandate, and as a result of his initial exploratory talks with the two Governments, Mr. Jarring decided to address himself to the possibility of getting both sides to agree to submit to an arbitrator or arbitrators, with powers of recommendation, the question of whether or not part I of the resolution of 13 August 1948 has been fully implemented. This approach failed, in the words of Mr. Jarring, because the Government of India ``did not feel that arbitration, as outlined by me, would be appropriate". [S/3821, para, 19.]
Mr. Graham would doubtless be equally free to examine. with the Governments of India and Pakistan any proposals whatever that would lead to the implementation of the agreements embodied in the Commission's resolutions. However, in the draft resolution [S/3911] before the Council, he is specifically requested to address himself to the question of the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in particular to "a reduction of forces on each side of the cease-fire line to a specific number", and to the formulation of an agreement to this end which is to be implemented within a specified period The proposal also calls on both sides to refrain from any statements or actions that might aggravate the situation.
The specific character of the mandate given to Mr. Graham is fully in keeping with the statements made to the Council by the representatives of India and Pakistan. The current argument between the parties has turned mainly on the issue of whether or not the cease-fire agreement has been fully implemented and whether or not it has since been violated. The representative of India, Mr. Krishna Menon, has contended that Pakistan is guilty of such repeated violations and is responsible for hostile propaganda and provocative acts against India. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Firoz Khan Noon, has made similar accusations against India.
The proposal to charge Mr. Graham with the task of promoting an agreement between the parties on reduction of forces on each side of the cease-fire line and to call on India and Pakistan to cooperate with him on the formulation and Implementation of demilitarisation procedures is a logical and necessary answer to the mutual charges of violation that have been made here. And the request addressed to both countries to refrain from hostile propaganda or provocative acts also flows from the complaints on this score that have been lodged by each side against the other.
This is an objective and impartial proposal. In no way can it reasonably be described as a partisan proposal. It is weighted in favour of nothing and nobody except the agreements embodied in the resolutions of the Commission for India and Pakistan. And both India and Pakistan have affirmed that they stand committed to those agreements. If there is one word or clause in the draft resolution which can be shown to militate against those agreements or which can be proved to place one side at a disadvantage compared to the other in carrying out its obligations under those agreements, then my delegation for one would welcome any suggestions which would redress such defects. I would like to express the fervent hope that this proposal shall, after careful examination, be accepted in good faith by both India and Pakistan.
I would crave your indulgence, Mr. President, to address through you, to the representative of India, who I regret is absent this afternoon, a few words of gentle remonstrance. I value his friendship highly and I deeply appreciate his many acts of courteous consideration towards me. My Government maintains friendly relations with India and sincerely hopes that those relations shall prosper. It is possible that my Government's notion of where justice lies in this dispute may differ from that held by the Government which my good friend Mr. Krishna Menon so ably represents here. It is also possible that my idea of where the true and lasting interest of India lies in this dispute may differ from his. But it does not follow from this difference that our views are vitiated by motives that are suspect.
Those suspicions appear to rest mainly on our membership in the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). Those suspicions happen to be justified, but not in the sense intended by Mr. Krishna Menon. In the Pacific Charter, which was adopted as an integral part of the Manila Pact, the Philippines and Pakistan jointly assumed with five other States the solemn undertaking "to uphold the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". This obligation is shared by the other members of the SEATO alliance that also happen to be members of the Security Council, namely, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Australia. But since this principle was lifted word for word from the Charter of the United Nations, it is clear that all the other members of the Council, including India, are equally committed to the principle. of self-determination of peoples.
Finally, I would assure our distinguished friend from India that my Government does not consider this question as mainly or exclusively the concern of the great Powers, Nor do we approach this question as an aspect of great Power relations with political under-tones that might conceivably influence our judgement. All countries, great and small, have a stake in the principles involved in the dispute: considerations of justice and equity, the honouring of international agreements, respect for the principle of self-determination of peoples, the integrity of decisions of the Security Council and its organs, and support of the Council's efforts to comply with its primary responsibility under the Charter to maintain international peace and security.
It is in this spirit that I would beg him to believe that during this discussion I have spoken to him as one Asian to another Asian, on behalf of a small Asian country speaking to a far greater one whose words and actions here, on this embittered question of Kashmir, can do much either to illumine or becloud our common Asian dream of a better world order of peace and freedom based on justice.