19061962 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Boland (Ireland) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1013 held on 19 June 1962

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Boland (Ireland) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1013 held on 19 June 1962

We in the Irish delegation listened with the closest interest and attention to the statements which were made here at the Council table by the representatives of India and Pakistan at the end of April and early in May. We are very glad to have had an opportunity, during the interval of time which has elapsed since then, of giving those statements the careful and detailed consideration which their importance so obviously demands.

Before discussing the question presently before the Council, may I say that Ireland, like other members of the Council, has nothing but the warmest feelings of friendship and sympathy for India and Pakistan alike. Not only do we value greatly the good relations which we have with both countries; we sincerely believe that more than ever today, in view of the general situation in southern Asia, the establishment and maintenance of friendly, neighbourly relations between India and Pakistan is a matter of vital concern not only to the subcontinent of India, but to the world community generally. It is in that belief and in the single-minded desire to contribute what we can as a member of the Council towards finding a mutually satisfactory solution of the question of Jammu and Kashmir that my delegation approaches the issue with which the Council is confronted.

The statements of the representatives of Pakistan and India devoted much attention to basic points of difference which have existed between the two Governments ever since the question of Jammu and Kashmir first came before the Council in 1948. These include the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947, the question of Pakistan's responsibility for the tribal irruptions into Kashmir in the same year, the action of the Government of Pakistan in sending regular Pakistan troops into the State in 1948, and so on.

These, of course, are very basic issues. As we all know. However, these issues had already been clearly defined and were fully in the minds of all concerned when UNCIP formulated its resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, which both Pakistan and India accepted at the time. Those resolutions did not purport to resolve the basic legal and other issues of which I have just spoken and, in our submission, to useful purpose would be served by an attempt by the Security Council to go back behind the Commission's resolutions in an effort to resolve those issues now. What the Commission's resolutions did do was to lay down a carefully considered procedure whereby, it was hoped, a peaceful settlement of the question of Jammu and Kashmir might be achieved.

The task of the Security Council now, it seems to us, is not to attempt to adjudicate upon issues on which UNCIP, in its wisdom, refrained from pronouncing itself, but to consider what progress can be made towards achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Jammu and Kashmir in the circumstances which exist today.

Unfortunately, if there is one thing that emerges more clearly than any other from the statements which we have heard from the representatives of Pakistan and India, it is that the differences of interpretation which prevented the prompt implementation of the Commission's resolutions in the first instance, instead of narrowing, have become wider and wider with the passage of time. Looking back, it is impossible not to deplore the circumstances which prevented the prompt implementation of the resolution of 1948 and 1949 in the favourable atmosphere which had been created by their race acceptance by both India and Pakistan. The delay was most unfortunate in its results because, as the Chairman of UNCIP said at the time-and his statement was recalled here this afternoon by my colleague, the representative of Ghana

"The Security Council's resolutions are static, but the situation is dynamic". The wisdom of that statement has been proved by the march of events, because not only has the lapse of time done nothing to bridge the differences which stood in the way of the implementation of the UNCIP resolution at the time when they were adopted, but changes of circumstances and political and other developments have intervened to make their implementation a matter of even greater difficulty and complexity today than it was when the resolutions were first passed.

While so much may be freely admitted, it seems to my delegation quite a different proposition to argue that because of what has happened in the meantime, the resolutions of 1948 and 1949 should now be regarded as having ceased to have any bearing on the matter at all. The UNCIP resolutions of 1948 and 1949 derive a special importance from the fact that they were accepted and agreed to at the time by both India and Pakistan. They have formed the basis of the Council's consideration of the question of Jammu and Kashmir even since. It would be unrealistic not to recognize that the interpretation and implementation of those resolutions have given rise to conflicts of view between the two countries which this Council has so far found it impossible to reconcile. It may be admitted too that any agreement between the two countries with regard to the question of Kashmir in the circumstances of today would need to take a fair and realistic account of such major political or other changes as may have taken place since those resolutions were adopted. But the UNCIP resolutions of 1948 and 1949 cannot be treated as if they had totally ceased to exist. They remain on the statute book of the Security Council and their provisions must be kept in view in the continuing search for a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue.

In their statements to the Council, the representatives of India and Pakistan dealt in detail with the differences of opinion and interpretation which have prevented the resolutions of 1948 and 1949 from resulting in a settlement of the Kashmir question on the lines contemplated in the resolutions themselves. Whatever the individual members of the Council may think of the rights and wrongs of these differences, one thing seems to be only too clear, and that is that the basic reason for the failure to make any progress towards a settlement of the question of Jammu and Kashmir lies in the fact that there is at present a complete lack of any measure of common agreement whatever between the Governments of India and Pakistan. What seems essential to us at this stage is that everything possible should be done to repair that lack; and, in our estimation, judging by the statements which have been made here at the Council able by the representatives of India and Pakistan, the best chances of repairing that lack in the present circumstances lie in direct discussions between the two Governments and in the creation and maintenance between them of a political atmosphere in which such discussions can be carried on with good prospects of success.

As other members of the Council have pointed out before me, it is not for the Security Council to attempt to impose or dictate a settlement of the Kashmir question. Nor can any action which it is open to the Council to take help to bring about a peaceful and stable settlement of the Kashmir question without the agreement and active cooperation of the Governments concerned What the Council can and should do, however, is to appeal earnestly to both Governments to make a determined effort, by means of direct talks between them, with or without the intervention of others as they may decide, to re-establish that basic element of mutual agreement which must exist before further progress can be made towards a settlement of the question.

There are elements, even in the state of deadlock which exists today, which justify the hope that such an effort would not be unproductive of results. Members of the Council will have heard with lively satisfaction, for example, the assurances given by the representatives of India and Pakistan that their Governments will not resort to force for the settlement of the Kashmir question. Another positive aspect of the present situation is that, in spite of the occasional isolated incidents which are always apt to occur on either side of truce or ceasefire lines, the cease-fire line laid down in 1949 continues to be respected.

These are welcome and even hopeful features of the situation as it exists today. They provide a useful starting point for further efforts to widen the areas of mutual agreement. And this, in our opinion, should now be the primary aim, because, when, all is said and done, in matters such as this there is really no satisfactory substitute for mutual agreement. No other settlement, no matter how it is arrived at, can possibly prove as effective, as stable or as enduring as one worked out and agreed to by the Governments concerned.

In that belief, we earnestly hope that the Governments of India and Pakistan will be prepared in the spirit of the phrase in the Preamble to the Charter which you, Mr. President quoted the other day-to sit down and endeavour to resolve the outstanding difficulties in direct talks between themselves, and that in the meantime they will, by mutual understanding, carefully refrain from any statements or courses of action which might have the effect of worsening the state of feeling between the peoples of the two countries. We are convinced that it is only in this way that the question of Kashmir can now be moved forward towards a peaceful settlement.