10021964 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Usher (Ivory Coast) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1090 held on 10 February 1964
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Usher (Ivory Coast) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1090 held on 10 February 1964
The Security Council is meeting to discuss once again the so-called question of Jammu and Kashmir at the request of Pakistan.
In order to establish the facts of the problem as they now stand, we have before us the letter dated 16 January 1964 from the Minister for External Affairs of Pakistan [S/5517] and the letter from the Permanent Representative of India dated 24 January 1964 [S/5522] informing us that the charges contained in the letter of 16 January have been dealt with in three previous letters from the Permanent Representative of India addressed to the President of the Security Council.
It is clear from those documents and from the events. which have just been recounted to us that Pakistan is accusing the Government of India of violating the Security Council resolutions of 30 March 1951 and 24 January 1957, as well as those of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan dated 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, by seeking to annex the part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which is held by India. In support of its argument, Pakistan refers to the legislative and constitutional changes [which the Indian Government is seeking to bring about.
Without, apparently, rejecting those charges, India replies that Jammu and Kashmir has been an integral part of India since 27 October 1947 under the British so-called Government of India Act of 1935, as amended in 1947. It is argued, therefore, that the question is a purely internal one.
The Security Council, alas, has had many opportunities to define its position. Its views are stated in well-known resolutions. We are not being asked to invalidate them, any more than we can be asked at this stage to prepare and indictment, to judge and to condemn. That would be futile; moreover, it is my delegation's understanding that our task is to take measures to bring about progress towards a just and honourable solution of the problem.
However, before dealing with the problem itself, my delegation would like to restate certain fundamental principles. First, we accept all the resolutions of the Security Council and we also recognize their dynamic nature; secondly, we reaffirm our devotion to the sacred principle of self-determination; thirdly, we also condemn racial and religious discrimination. That is the spirit in which we approach this debate, seeing for ourselves with great sorrow and regret the distressing results of the violence which has occurred and which cannot be explained away by reason of passion.
In view of the gravity of the question and the possibility of a deadlock in the Council, every possibility of settling the matter which comes to mind should be thoroughly explored and we must say at once that there is a glimmer of hope. This hope, which already existed in 1951 and 1957, has become a little dimmer in 1964 because the situation is so fluid. But it is still something to hold on to since, in the interest of peace, we must cling to some hope rather than give way to despair.
The peoples of Pakistan and India are one and the same people. For centuries they have lived on good terms side by side. There are Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan. Surely a Muslim is no different physiologically from a Hindu, a Christian or an atheist? And yet, whole communities rise up against each other and slaughter each other acts of madness which claim tens, hundreds and thousands of lives. The minorities are hostages; they live in constant insecurity which becomes more acute as relations between the two countries deteriorate. Neither the world nor the Security Council should accept this state of affairs. It has made the leaders of the two sister nation's sick at heart.
The President of India has asked the President of Pakistan to join with him in appealing to the people of the two countries to maintain peace and harmony. The President of Pakistan is also asking the Indian authorities to take effective measures to restore peace and order and to give the Muslim minorities a feeling of security once again.
We cannot fail to note the pathetic appeal made by the President of Pakistan to the President of India, which was read to us by the Minister of External Affairs of Pakistan, and I quote :
"By blaming and thus implicitly condoning communal killings and destruction in one country on similar instances in the other, we might unwittingly lend encouragement precisely to these evil forces which it is Government's duty to curb.... Let leaders in each country look into their own hearts and resolve to put their own house in order." [1087th meeting, pära. 70.]
It has been proved that the two countries are so closely bound together that nothing that happens in one can fail to be of concern to the other. It has been proved that each needs moral guarantee from the other in order to maintain peace within its own borders. Lastly, it has been proved if such proof were necessary-that the two countries are suffering morally and materially from this state of latent crisis.
Consequently, the immediate practical action open to us is to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan to establish the conditions for internal peace in their respective countries. For this they must do two things: first, restore climate of understanding between the two countries and peace and harmony between the communities by putting an end to the war being waged in the Press and over the air which can only foster hatred and exacerbate tensions between them with all the risks of open conflict inherent in such a situation; secondly, use the influence of the elected authorities and leaders to ease the minds of the people, particularly the majorities, and thus prevent a recurrence of violence and ensure the security of the communities.
We believe that if each party took those steps within its own territory it would be furnishing the best proof of its desire to seek a peaceful solution to the dispute we are considering. It must, however, be recognized that these are only tentative solutions, applicable only to the immediate present, and that Kashmir must cease to be a constant subject of tension in Indo-Pakistan relation-must cease to be the cause of internal disorder it has been since 1947.
The disinterested, neutral observer cannot but notice that any complication, any instability in Kashmir not only has an immediate effect on the relations between India and Pakistan,
but creates a feeling of insecurity in both countries.
My delegation is among those which believe that enough everything may have been said, tried and done in the matter, it is our duty, out of friendship for the two countries and in the interest of averting the threat to peace and security in that part of the world, not to sidestep the fundamental issue.
To that end, we shall begin with the statements of leaders whose words are to be trusted. In his speech of 26 January, on the eve of the national holiday, President Radhakrishnan, according to France-Presse, asserted his desire to bring about peace in the world and stated that in its relations with China and Pakistan the Indian Government was guided by the desire to reach a peaceful and honourable settlement of questions in dispute. In its letter of 24 January the Indian Government once again appeals to the Government of Pakistan to join with it to devise ways and means of bringing to an end the recurring cycle of such incidents and disturbances which were poisoning relations between the two countries.
The representative of India likewise reiterated before the Security Council that he believed in discussion, in the solution of differences by means of conferences, and he added: "... we will welcome Pakistan to sit with us and resolve our differences" [1088th meeting, para. 87].
All these admissions convince us of the possibility of a rapprochement. And that, in our view, is something we can work with. While it is true that throughout this long Kashmir episode we may sometimes have wondered about the underlying intentions of one party or the other, including these friends, we now feel that the statements quoted are in keeping with the methods laid down by the Heads of African States and Governments at Addis Ababa and proclaimed by them as doctrine in the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity: the ultimate purpose of dialogue is a positive result.
We would hope that Pakistan would react to that attitude with that constant concern for accommodation and that virtue of willingness to make concessions which it has shown ever since the problem of Jammu and Kashmir first arose. For that matter, Pakistan has not eliminated that possibility as a means of bringing the two countries to the inexorable and logical end of their road, namely, the good neighbourliness and friendship to which they have been destined by their long common history. Moreover, the Minister for External Affairs of Pakistan also stated in the Security Council: "It is within our power to find the means to live in peace, provided there is a will to live in peace." [1087th meeting, para. 97].
These statements in which the words "peace", "just", "honourable" are used again and again are in conformity with the Purposes and Principles, and in particular, with Chapter VI, of the United Nations Charter.
In the light of all this, we are tempted to ask India and Pakistan to resume negotiations, leaving it to them to seek the good offices either of a State or of some eminent person if they should feel the seed and the desire to do so. Of course, that solution does not fully satisfy the parties concerned. One of them is merely asking for an appeal to bring their mutual relations into harmony, for a negotiation of differences, and no more. The other considers our proposals too vague and wants us, in a resolution, to reaffirm the Council's previous decisions, the right of self-determination and mediation by the Secretary General.
The proposals of India and Pakistan are so far apart that they seem to be irreconcilable. The bonds of friendship between the Ivory Coast and both of those countries, and its solidarity with them within the framework of the African-Asian group, precluded it from siding with one against the other.
Nevertheless, we wish to discharge our responsibility as a member of the Council. We have been considering as one possible solution the proposals which a number of delegations with which we have been in contact since the beginning of our discussions of the subject have encouraged us to submit to the Council.
These proposals may be embodied in a resolution, or in an appeal by the President of the Council. My delegation would go along with a resolution if the majority of the Council so desired, but it preferred an appeal. We are therefore prepared to give full support to an appeal which would read as follows:
"The Security Council requests the two countries : (1) to re-establish a climate of understanding between them and to restore peace and harmony between the communities; and (2) to prevent the recurrence of acts of violence and to ensure the security of the communities.
"The Council calls upon the two parties to resume their negotiations with a view to reaching a peaceful settlement of all their differences, including the question. of Kashmir, taking into account past action by the United Nations and the wishes of the people concerned.
"The Council suggests to the two countries that they should have recourse, by agreement, to the good offices of a country or a person of their choice, if they consider it desirable to do so."
Those are the proposals which the delegation of the Republic of the Ivory Coast wished to submit to the Security Council.