21061962 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Plimpton (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1015 held on 21 June 1962
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Plimpton (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1015 held on 21 June 1962
My purpose in asking to speak today was to see if some measure of agreement could not be found in what has been. said in the Council. We have reviewed the debate carefully and wish to put forward some observations for consideration by the members which, we hope, will be of value.
In the course of this debate, the overwhelming majority of Council members have concentrated their views on five major points. First, most members were gratified by the assurances given by both parties that they will refrain from the use of force in the settlement of this dispute. The second point was the continued applicability of the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) and the resolutions of the Council itself on the problem of Kashmir. Third, members have expressed views on the need for India and Pakistan to enter into negotiations which would lead to a peaceful settlement of this dispute. Fourth, a number of members have also commented on the possibility of having the parties avail themselves of the services or good offices of an impartial third party, to assist in such negotiations. Finally, members have not failed to comment on the responsibility of the Security Council in this matter.
But let me be more specific; allow me, as a start, to cite what members have said with regard to the second point, that is, the continued applicability of the UNCIP resolutions. The representative of Ghana, for example, elaborated in substantial detail on his Government's point of view, saying:
"In spite of Mr. Graham's inability to report success, my delegation considers that in default of any other basis for agreement being discovered, the Council must find out whether it can build upon its past efforts, having particular regard to the international obligations by which the parties stood bound under the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949." [1013th meeting, para. 12.]
The representative of Ireland, in discussing that point, said at the same meeting :
"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." [Ibid., para. 55.]
This position was supported, either directly or by inference, by the representatives of France, Chile, China, the United Kingdom and ourselves, while Mr. Sosa Rodriguez, the representative of Venezuela appeared to attach such importance to these resolutions that he thought that the Security Council could well limit itself to recalling and reaffirming the basic principles of its previous resolutions [1014th meeting].
All members who have spoken have recognized the need for the parties to resume negotiations. This is an important fact which should give us definite guidance. There is some disparity of view, however, with regard to the introduction of a third party. We felt that most of the representatives who spoke appeared to lean to the view that an impartial third party to assist India and Pakistan in their negotiations would be useful.
Sir Patrick Dean, the United Kingdom representative, in discussing the need for the parties to enter into negotiations mentioned the Indus waters analogy, where a third party had been helpful. Ambassador Boland touched upon the possibility of negotiations with a third party to lend a hand, while Mr. Hsuch the representative of China believes that the services of the Secretary-General might well be utilized. Ambassador Quaison-Sackey recalled the informal suggestion of his President, offering his assistance to both parties. Mr. Stevenson referred to the offer by President Kennedy of the services of Mr. Eugene R. Black of the World Bank to explore with each Head of Government the outlines and prospects for negotiations and discussions, adding:
"We are convinced that a high-level conference between India and Pakistan which, we believe, would be facilitated by such an exploration, would enable the parties to ascertain the precise areas of disagreements between them and should, we hope, induce that spirit of compromise and magnanimity on both sides without which no problem can ever be truly solved." [1012th meeting, para. 14.]
Now let me turn to the points of view expressed on the question of Security Council responsibility. Members readily recognized that the Security Council cannot impose a solution to this problem on either party. However, there was recognition that the Security Council could make a contribution. Ambassador Riad of the United Arab Republic thought that the most important objective of the Security Council should be "to help the two parties to resume contacts to reach a peaceful solution". [1013th meeting, para. 26.] Ambassador Boland thought that :
"What the Council can and should do. . . is to appeal earnestly to both Governments to make a determined effort... to re-establish that basic element of mutual agreement which must exist before further progress can be made towards a settlement of the question." [Ibid., para. 57.]
Ambassador Quaison-Sackey pointed out :
"The reasons for making yet another serious attempt to achieve progress are, therefore, overriding, and the Council will certainly require more than ever all the understanding, patience, impartiality and sense of responsibility that it had evinced in the past." [Ibid. 1013th meeting, para. 22.] Sir Patrick Dean remarked :
"Nevertheless, the Security Council cannot wash its hands of the whole affair. The past history of discussion before it and its previous decisions make this impossible. We have a clear duty to formulate a view." [1012th meeting, para. 35.]
Ambassador Schweitzer of Chile said: "We cannot show the world a Security Council powerless before this problem." [1014th meeting, para. 34.] Mr. Stevenson described the Council's responsibility as one in which it would use its best efforts to ensure that a peaceful settlement be attained, while you, Mr. President, as I recall, in your capacity as representative of France, echoed this sentiment when you referred to Article 33 and said: "All that the Security Council can do, within the terms of this Article, is to 'call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means." [1012th meeting, para. 49.]
These views may vary in degree, but there appears to be general agreement as to the continuing responsibility of the Council in this matter.
I hope that I have made a fair summary of the views which have found sympathy among a majority of the members of the Security Council. I have done so in the hope that such a summary will help to focus the attention of the Council on common areas of agreement and that it may lead to further contemplation as to exactly how the Council may be useful.
I would therefore suggest, Mr. President, that following this meeting we should meet again, either tomorrow afternoon or Monday, depending upon the wishes of other members of the Council, with the object of further consultations in the meantime leading to a determination by the Council of the action to be taken.