21111957 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Sobolev (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 805 held on 21 November 1957

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Sobolev (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 805 held on 21 November 1957

The Soviet delegation stated its position [799th meeting] on the Kashmir question at the time of the discussion of Mr. Jarring's report [S/3821]. The Security Council is now considering the draft resolution sponsored by the delegations of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Colombia and the Philippines [S/3911].

In connection with this draft resolution it should be remembered that the Kashmir question has been on the agenda of the Security Council for almost ten years, and during that period a considerable amount of time and effort has been devoted to its discussion. However, no satisfactory solution has yet been found, chiefly because of the position adopted by the Western

Powers which have been trying to use the Kashmir question to carry through their own political plans and impose on one of the parties a decision unacceptable to it.

Led by the Western Powers, the Security Council adopted resolutions establishing the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and a number of conciliatory missions. All these resolutions, as the experience of many years has shown, diverted the attention of the Security Council from the heart of the problem. This course of action led the Council into protracted and fruitless debate, while the Western Powers and in the first place the United States of America used the time to open the way for penetration into the strategically important area of Kashmir. It should be noted that they have been successful in their schemes. The fact that Pakistan was encouraged to carry out military preparations and that it was given large-scale military assistance has exposed the intentions of the Western Powers which have been helping to the turn the part of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan into a fortified strategic outpost.

It is obvious that the Kashmir question could not remain unaffected by such events as the equipping of the Pakistan armed forces and at the same time af the "Azad'' forces with modern United States weapons, and the construction of military bases and airfields on which jet aircraft were concentrated. These facts which testify to the increased military potential of Pakistan, coupled with the entry of that country into military blocs built up by the United States of America in that area of the world, exacerbate relations between India and Pakistan and impede the peaceful settlement of the Kashmir question..

In our view, India, which is pursuing a peaceful foreign policy, has cause for concern. The Pakistan Government has been taking military measures with the support of States which not long ago showed that in order to achieve their aims they would not shrink from resorting to armed force.

The change in the balance of power and the increased tension in that area of Asia give rise to deep anxiety in peace loving countries and throughout the world. This same anxiety was reflected in Mr. Jarring's report.

Mr. Jarring stressed in particular the need for a new constructive approach to the Kashmir question and said:

"The Council will, furthermore, be aware of the fact 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 tended to change." [S/3821, para 21.]

The Soviet delegation attaches importance to these practical considerations and believes that the Security Council can take no decision on the Kashmir question without taking them into account. We had hoped that the other members of the Security Council would also take account of such cogent arguments. However, the statements made by the representatives of the Western Powers in the Security Council show that they continue as before to disregard the present situation in Kashmir. This becomes even more evident in the five Power draft resolution [S/3911]

The first question which arises is whether the draft resolution takes into account the protracted discussion of the Kashmir question in the Security Council and the position of the parties. as stated by them, and whether it reflects the substantial changes which have taken place in the Kashmir area and in the state of international relations. There can be but one reply. The draft resolution seems to have been produced in a vacuum.

The draft resolution proposes that we should once again seek a solution of the Kashmir question along lines which, as many years of experience have shown, cannot lead to satisfactory results. The sponsors of the draft resolution are again urging the Security Council to adopt the course mapped out by some of its previous resolutions, which, like the recommendations of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan, have failed to stand the test of time.

Although everyone knows that Mr. Graham, the United. Nations Representative, admitted five years ago that his proposals were unacceptable to both parties, the authors of the draft resolutions are again proposing that they should be taken as a basis for discussion. The Indian representative has already stated in the Council that those proposals are unacceptable to India. The question arises: what is the use of adopting one more resolution, which instead of offering constructive proposals that would meet present day needs simply repeats proposals which experience has shown to be futile and which do nothing to further a pacific settlement of the Kashmir question ?

The draft resolution lays stress on the implementation of measures which its authors describe as "demilitarisation". In this connection, it is pertinent to ask one of the sponsors, the United States representative, whether the proposal for demilitarisation also includes calling a halt to be shipment of United States arms to Pakistan for re-equipping its army and to the construction of military bases? It cannot be denied that the large-scale military assistance given to Pakistan by the United States aggravates the situation in the Kashmir area, creates new obstacles in the way of a settlement of the Kashmir question, and is incompatible with demilitarisation.

Mr. Jarring's report testifies to the need for a new realistic approach to the settlement of the question. In it he concludes that implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan is impeded by the deadlock reached with regard to carrying out part I of the resolution of 13 August 1948, which provides that a favourable atmosphere should be created and military potential should not be increased. As is clear from the facts that have been cited in meetings of the Security Council, this deadlock is the result of Pakistan's failure to carry out its obligations under that resolution. This is a circumstance that must be taken into account in any new decision by the Security Council.

The representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom attempted to present their draft resolution in the light of a compromise, calling for mutual concessions by both parties. In actual fact, as the discussion in the Security Council showed, the draft resolution under discussion satisfies only one party, Pakistan; it does not make India's position into account, but rather attempts to impose on it a decision it finds unacceptable. It is obvious that such attempts are contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States. These provisions prohibit the imposition of any decisions upon States Members of the United Nations.

In these circumstances, the statement of the United States representative that "no final settlement of the Kashmir problem can be reached except on an amicable basis acceptable to both parties" [803rd meeting, para 26] is purely declaratory for the United States to refrain from imposing on the parties decisions unacceptable to them would be of far greater use.

The Security Council cannot disregard the Indian Government's statement that the draft resolution under consideration is unacceptable to it. We must not forget that we are seeking means of a peaceful settlement of the dispute between India and Pakistan, and that it is therefore the Security Council's duty to look for such methods and measures as would be acceptable to both parties. The USSR delegation wishes to draw the attention of the members of the Security Council to the serious consequences which could result from the adoption by the Council of a decision that would only complicate an already tense situation in that part of Asia.

The USSR delegation expresses the hope that the Security Council will not take the path which the sponsors of the draft resolution are trying to make it take; it is a path that cannot lead to a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir question and that it will reject the draft resolution.

The USSR delegation cannot support the draft resolution. submitted by the United States, the United Kingdom and some other countries, and it will vote against it.