15061962 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Hsueh (China) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1012 held on 15 June 1962

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Hsueh (China) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1012 held on 15 June 1962

I do not propose to discuss all of the many issues involved in the complex question which is now under our consideration. As we all know, the India-Pakistan question-or the Kashmir question is the oldest of all territorial disputes that have been brought up in the United Nations My delegation happens to be one of those which have participated in all the debates that have taken place on this question at more than one hundred meetings of the Security Council. I believe the position of my Government on the various issues has been made amply clear. In this debate, therefore, I will address myself only to the pertinent basic principles, the importance of which justifies a reaffirmation of our support, and perhaps also to one or two points concerning the latest development which may call for some comment.

It is indeed regrettable that this territorial dispute between India and Pakistan should have remained on the books of the Security Council for more than fourteen years. The latest mission undertaken by Mr. Graham has not, in spite of his diligence and resourcefulness, yielded the hoped-for result. My delegation has carefully studied his last report and wishes to pay tribute to him for his efforts. We have also listened with great attention to the statements made at the earlier meetings of the Council by the representatives of the two parties. To be frank, I must say that we have found few elements in these statements to justify any hope for an early solution of the long dispute. The two parties seem to remain as far apart on this question as they were fourteen years ago.

However, it cannot be said that the present debate has been in vain. It has been quite useful. It will be recalled that, late last year and early this year, numerous statements were These made by persons of considerable influence, both in India and Pakistan, about possible forcible action over Kashmir. statements, while seemingly justifiable in the eyes of the party making them, sounded warlike to the other. No doubt they have contributed to the rise of tension between the two countries. It will be recalled that Pakistan made the request for the present meetings of the Security Council mainly because, in its belief, such statements made in India, particularly those during the national election, constituted a threat to international peace and security.

Against that background, the Council has now heard, during this debate, categorical guarantees given by both parties that they will not seek a settlement of the question through the use of force. I am sure that the Council warmly welcomes these guarantees. For not only do they help relax the tension and thereby create a culmer atmosphere, which is necessary if any new effort toward a settlement is to succeed at all, but, what is more, they also serve to reinforce, in a general sense, respect for the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes as contained in our Charter. This support of what may be considered the most fundamental principle of our Organisation is all the more welcome, coming as it does at a time when the threat or use of force tends to become again the mode of nations in the settlement of territorial disputes in the name of one high-sounding doctrine or another. My delegation is of the view that, in any resolution that may be adopted on this question, the Council should take due note of these guarantees.

It has been said in connection with the Kashmir question that life has not stood still but hrs moved forward and that much water has passed under the bridge during these fourteen years. I think that is very true. We have heard what the parties have done in these years for the people of Kashmir about economic progress, about industrial development, about the growth of wealth, about the educational achievements and about the improvement of health conditions. I think we all can and should join the people of Kashmir in their rejoicing over the increasingly better conditions in which they live My delegation has nothing but admiration for such good work which benefits the people. But it cannot be said that such internal development, which is so desirable and necessary, has caused any change in the legal status of Kashmir.

Nor could the current initiative which is reported to have been taken by Pakistan, to negotiate with the Chinese Communists in regard to the border of Kashmir, have any effect on the status of Kashmir. What Pakistan hopes to gain from such negotiations, I do not know. India's reaction to such negotiations has already been made known in this Council and elsewhere. On instructions from my Government, I wish to put on record that the result of such negotiations, if any, will not be binding on my Government and on the people of China.

It is only fair to all parties concerned to say that in the eyes of the Security Council, nothing has happened in Kashmir that changes the legal status of that territory. The status of Kashmir remains what it was fourteen years ago. In the absence of an agreement between India and Pakistan, it cannot be determined without regard to the principle of self-determination. This has been the position consistently taken by the Security Council on the Kashmir question. I do not see how it is possible for the Council to take any other position.

The plebiscite elaborately worked out by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, agreed to by the parties and approved by the Security Council, is the means by which the principle of self-determination is to be put into practice in Kashmir. It is the means by which the people of Kashmir are to express freely, under fair and equitable conditions, their will as to the future of the country. It has now been said that such expression has been made through the three elections held in Kashmir. In all sincerity and with due respect, my delegation has yet to be convinced that these elections could have served the same purpose as the plebiscite is designed to serve. I do not think that the people were consulted in these elections about the future status of Kashmir. Furthermore, the UNCIP resolutions contain detailed provisions concerning demilitarisation, withdrawal of troops and other matters, all of which are designed to create fair and equitable conditions so that the plebiscite will be free and impartial and will not be influenced in one way or another. My delegation is constrained to say that the three elections held in Kashmir, however fair and democratic in their own field, are no substitute for the plebiscite and that they have no bearing on the status of Kashmir.

The holding of a plebiscite has been blocked by an impasse which developed at an early stage in the implementation of the UNCIP resolutions. It has become increasingly difficult to remove the impasse as time goes on. After all these years, it might be impractical and futile to determine the responsibility for such an impasse. Even if the Council could today make a definite finding as to who and what have obstructed the full implementation of the UNCIP resolutions, it does not seem likely that such a finding would improve the situation and help settle the dispute. When we find a door closed and even locked, we may of course keep on knocking on it persistently in order to have it opened. At the same time, we may also wish to turn around and see if there is another door which may not be so tightly closed. I think that we must continue to probe all possible approaches to a solution of this long deadlocked dispute.

The Security Council should take advantage of this present debate to urge the two parties to enter into new negotiations. They may wish to do so between themselves or with the help of a third party. As the representative of the United States has just said, the Security Council should be prepared to give them all possible assistance. In the past, the good offices of the Secretary-General have frequently proved helpful in handling delicate and complicated situations. In the present case, the Acting Secretary-General, coming from a country which neighbours both India and Pakistan, can be assumed to have intimate knowledge and appreciation of the intricacies of the problem. My delegation believes that the services may well be utilised. Territorial disputes have afflicted many regions of the world in the course of history. Some of them have proven The leaders of India terribly costly, such as Alsace-Lorraine. and Pakistan of course know this, but the two peoples, moved by passionate nationalism and patriotism, may not know it. Let me express the hope that the people of India and the people of Pakistan will face the problem of Kashmir not only with warm hearts, but also with cool heads.