21061962 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council meeting No. 1015 held on 21 June 1962

 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council meeting No. 1015 held on 21 June 1962

When the United States representative was speaking just now, I looked several times at the place where he was sitting in order to assure myself that he was not speaking from the Chair when he summed up the discussion on behalf, as he stated twice, of almost all the members of the Council. I saw with pleasure, however, that the President is still presiding over the Council meeting and that the United States representative is behind the nameplate reading "United States''. This somewhat reassured me, so that I am now able to make a few comments on the summing up attempted by the United States representative.

Before making these comments, I must revert to the idea which I already advanced at the 1013th meeting about the peculiar turn recently taken by this discussion. Although in fact everyone has already spoken on every aspect of the subject, although everyone's opinions and shades of opinion are quite obvious, although no formal proposals have been made and I trust none will be made-since the very course of the discussion and the very facts of the case show that at this stage there is no need for the Council to take any decisions, the meetings nevertheless continue; they are postponed, one or two representatives speak and then there is a further postponement, in the expectation of something unknown, or known only to the small group of people who are keeping our candle burning a candle which the rest of us, who are uninitiated, cannot touch and whose purpose we therefore cannot understand.

There are two possibilities: either there are some specific proposals which are being prepared and which in that case should be submitted to us-although we see no need to take any decisions now after this extremely exhaustive exchange of views or else we should bring this stage of our work to an end. In fact, the arguments just used by the United States representatives merely underline the need for a full stop precisely at this stage, so as not to jeopardise the future situation in the region we are discussing, the authority of the Council or the maintenance of universal peace and security.

I shall now turn to the remarks just made by the United States representative when he attempted-in my view, adequately, inaccurately and perhaps even unsuccessfully to sum up the discussion of this question. I am not saying this because he omitted me from the sages, beginning with the United States representative, whom he cited here as authorities who gave a correct evaluation of the facts and showed us the course we should follow. Having no desire to quote myself, I shall modestly refer the members of the Council to the Council's records, and, in particular, to my statement of 4 May 1962. [1010th meeting]. It will be seen from this document that the conclusions which were drawn as general conclusions on behalf of all the members of the Council are inapplicable, at least where the position of the Soviet delegation is concerned. I said this the day before yesterday and I repeat it now-my delegation abides by its views, which we think were clearly and logically explained at previous meetings of the Council.

It it true that, in his remarks, the United States representative did mention certain points which in fact were made during meetings of the Council. For example, he said that the members of the Council had heard a statement by the representative of India to the effect that India would never initiate military operations in the Kashmir region. Such a statement was in fact made and was welcomed by all the members of the Council, including the USSR delegation. After this statement, the representative of Pakistan also made a statement-perhaps not as precise and clear a statement as we might have wished-but he did make a statement to the effect that Pakistan, for its part, would not do anything which might lead to military operations being undertaken in this region.

Thus, one of the main points which might have given the Security Council cause for concern and called for action on its part has been adequately disposed of in the statements made by both sides. This means that there is now no situation, in which we might expect that, if we merely come to a full stop at this stage in our discussion of the question, the situation in the Kashmir region would suddenly deteriorate, that there might be a danger of a military clash there for any reason. Such a situation does not exist. This is why I say that, when the United States representative based his argument on the statements by India and Pakistan that they would not use force in connection with the Kashmir question, it was not an argument in favour of continuing the debate. This argument is not mine but his, and it is not an argument in favour of continuing the debate but rather-as any objective observer can see in favour of concluding it, in order not to arouse passions and cause the situation to deteriorate by the trend and nature of our discussion. The situation is quite peaceful, as was noted, in particular, in the statement of the representative of India was accepted as axiomatic in the statement just made by the United States representative.

However, Mr. Plimpton, the representative of the United States, adduced two other arguments in his statement First, he tried again and again as was also done, I would say, not by the majority but by comparatively few members of the Council to resurrect and reinforce the importance of the resolutions adopted by the Security Council on the Kashmir question fourteen years ago I repeat, fourteen years ago. He rightly said that, if this attitude was justified and one could really speak of applying resolutions adopted fourteen years ago, then it would obviously be impossible to come to a full stop and some proposals would have to be made regarding the application, in entirely new and altered circumstances, of these fourteen-year-old resolutions. However, even the United States representative does not go so far. Like the others who have touched upon this question, he does not suggest that there should now be a plebiscite, say, in Kashmir in order to decide the fate of this part of the territory of India. None of those who referred to these old resolutions and who supported them so strongly has gone far as to propose that they should be implemented because, if anyone had considered the question in detail, it would have been more than obvious how unrealistic and completely unfounded such proposals would be at this time. As I said in my statement on 4 May 1962, these proposals might have had some usefulness fourteen years ago in the circumstances then prevailing and if a number of conditions mentioned at that time had been fulfilled.

It is now quite unrealistic to demand a plebiscite, just as, in the words of the representative of India; obviously no one would now demand a plebiscite in Texas, Ohio or any other state in the United States of America. Hence, when the question of the validity of the old resolutions is raised again and again, another question inevitably arises : do those who raise the matter themselves believe that it is now possible to implement such a resolution as, for example, the resolution on the holding of a plebiscite? Do they believe this or not? Are they seriously making this suggestion to us or are they making it for reasons which have no bearing on the solution. of the question before us ?

I do not wish to answer for them, but I have very serious doubts that those who refer to the implementation of these old resolutions in new circumstances believe that the Council can really propose them as a plan of action now after fourteen. years. This is why there is no longer any question of resurrecting, reaffirming, mentioning or recalling in some other way on behalf of the Council the significance and applicability of resolutions which the Council adopted in a quite different set of circumstances; there can be no question of this now. Such proposals can have no success in the Council. I have said this before and I say it again now.

There remains another argument used by the United States representative-the idea of mediation in the so-called negotiations between India and Pakistan. According to the Charter, negotiations between countries are a normal and natural means of arriving at the peaceful settlement of any dispute. This clear and important provision of the Charter naturally continues to have force and significance. However, negotiations can be useful only when both sides are interested in fruitful negotiations. If one side wants to force the other to negotiate on terms which the other side finds unacceptable, deliberately lying down unacceptable conditions, such negotiations will achieve nothing, no matter how often reference is made to the provisions of the Charter, because what is needed in negotiations is goodwill and agreement between the parties, and not-I repeat-attempts by one party to force the other to agree to a basis for discussion which is unacceptable in principle.

This is why the second argument for continuing discussion of these questions also actually works against the person who uses it. The United States representative's argument that we should continue to seek measures of this kind in the Council here and now is inconsistent, because it inflames passions in the Kashmir question and provokes the discord which we regret to say-is largely a consequence of the colonial epoch and of the ancient policy known as "divide and rule". But all this provocation is not in the interests of the people of Pakistan, the people of India or the United Nations and it naturally cannot be endorsed by the Security Council, as the principal organ responsible under the Charter for the maintenance of universal peace and security.

Thus these two main arguments-the resurrection of former resolutions of the Council and their reinstatement in some form, and the idea of insisting on mediation, which is unacceptable to one side, in the negotiations-are completely invalid. This I maintain. The whole sluggish, reluctant and drawn-out discussion of this question that now only a small group of members of the Council are trying to keep the debate going. I will make no guesses or assumptions why they are doing this; I merely note that only a small group of Council members want artificially to prolong the discussion of this question. All this and the general atmosphere in which the discussion has taken place show that we should merely take note of the statements made here by both the representative of India and the representative of Pakistan to the effect that neither side will take the initiative of using armed force in the Kashmir region and that we can therefore draw the conclusion that the relative peace and calm which have for some time reigned in this region will continue.

Thus, the Council has no cause for alarm in connection with Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the Charter, and no need to take any special or additional decisions. I therefore suggest that the wisest course would be to come to a full stop at this point and be satisfied with the exchange of opinions which has already taken place.