14021964 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Hajek (Czechoslovakia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1091 held on 14 February 1964
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Hajek (Czechoslovakia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1091 held on 14 February 1964
We have carefully studied the documentation submitted to the members of the Security Council in the letters addressed to the President by the representatives of India [S/5522] and Pakistan [S/5517]. We have also heard and then read the statements by these representatives in the Council. In our view, an analysis of these facts and positions reveals nothing that could basically alter the nature of the dispute or that brings to it anything substantially new.
We are considering a dispute and even a conflict between two large States, important Members of the United Nations a dispute and conflict between two country which are closely linked geographically, between peoples who are ethnically very close to if not identical with each other and have over the past centuries been united by a historical process in which they co-operated in the creation of a civilization and culture whose rich artistic forms and depth of thought are still the admiration of the whole world, between peoples who were also united in a more recent past by their resistance and courageous struggle against invasion, foreign occupation and colonial oppression.
In the life of the people of the Indian subcontinent, recently divided between India and Pakistan, there are certainly more elements of unity than of discord, if we consider geography, history, language and race; even in the matter of religion, the disappearance of several minorities-Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan-should in this context be a unifying factor rather than a source of conflict.
Yet the situation today is quite different. It has just been described to us in speeches, and we have noted reports which speak of hundreds and even thousands of victims and myriads of refugees, following bloody incidents during disturbances between communities.
In my delegation's view, the paradox of this dispute can be explained only by the fact that the dispute is a relic of the recent past. The history of the conflict, as described in the documentation before us, shows that it is closely connected by a causal as well as a temporal link-with problem of the partition of the Indian subcontinent. Without wishing to get involved in historical considerations and analyses, we should note the preponderant role played by the former colonial Power in this process, and we shall then see that the so-called question of Jammu and Kashmir is one part or one aspect of the complex problems created by the colonial regime-problems which persisted after the end of that regime and have confronted the peoples that had liberated themselves from its hold.
In this regard, India and Pakistan constitute no isolated case. In several instances, similar problems have arisen problems created and perpetuated by occupying or dominating foreign regimes all over the world. Take, for example, the disputes and conflicts between certain Latin American countries during the nineteenth century, after their liberation. To some extent, even the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe had to struggle, when the empires collapsed after the First World War, with the relics of those empires which hindered their development and often involved them in territorial or ethnic disputes with each other. To a greater and more varied extent, these same problems recur in the life of the peoples of Asia and Africa, with the collapse of the colonial system on these continents. Mostre atibul The peoples then embark on a course of independent development, starting by playing an important role in the formation of the new world, and find themselves up against huge obstacles which often had their origin in the past, at a time when not only their countries' administrative frontiers but important decisions on every aspect of their lives were dictated, not so much by the desires or needs of the indigenous population, or of its natural ethnic units or entities, as by the interests of the colonial regime and of those who benefited from it. In all the past cases in which these problems were the source of conflicts that were often bloody and tragic, and in many cases today, it seems to us that it was and is for the peoples themselves, first and foremost, to liberate themselves from these relics of foreign or colonial domination, instead of remaining its slaves.
We believe that these peoples, which have displayed so much courage in the struggle for their liberation, are also fully capable of displaying wisdom, political foresight, moderation and tolerance in their mutual relations in order to rid themselves of the vestiges of colonialism, to solve the problems peacefully and to establish a relationship of mutual friendship, trust and cooperation. Of course, the path to these solutions is not always easy to find.
Our Government and people draw upon their own historical experience and knowledge to obtain a complete picture of these problems of the world of today, their complexity, their importance and the responsibility of the international community and all its members with regard to their solution. This is why we insist on the principle that such disputes should be settled exclusively by peaceful methods. Replying to the proposal of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, Mr. Khrushchev, concerning the peaceful solution of territorial disputes-which has already been recalled here and quoted, together with some other replies the President of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Mr. Novotny, stated inter alia.
"In the modern world, there are a large number of territorial disputes conditioned by complex factors of a historical, ethnic or geographical nature, the aggravation of which would constitute a threat to peaceful relations among nations. The cases where an evil heritage has been bequeathed by the colonial Powers to the new States form a special group. I agree with you that one cannot simply ignore all territorial problems and act as though they did not exist.
"Today the position is that all frontier disputes between States can be settled exclusively by peaceful means and by negotiations, with proper respect for the facts of the modern world. This is the only practical way in which the needs and the desires of the peoples can be satisfied."
It is also along these same lines that, in our view, the resolution of the current drama of the India-Pakistan dispute must be sought. Since it can basically be regarded as a relic of the problem created for the peoples of the Indian subcontinent by the former colonialist regime, this dispute can be settled only by these peoples themselves. It is true that disputes and conflicts between brothers are often the most bitter, marked as they are by emotion and passion. However, only these brotherly enemies can and must end them without any outside intervention which would merely complicate them and delay, is not prevent, their solution.
Our people has great sympathy for the peoples of the Indian subcontinent, deep admiration for their great culture which is imbued with a humanitarian and pacifist spirit, for their ancient and modern history and for the struggle they have carried on to liberate themselves from colonialism. We do not forget that the leaders of this struggle clearly and unequivocally showed their sympathy and solidarity with our country in the difficult times it went through in 1938, when so many old friends in the West forgot their friendship. We recognize the important role played by these peoples in the efforts made, after the Second World War, to keep the peace among nations.
From the outset we have had excellent relations with India, and we are glad that in recent years we have developed favourable and happy relations with Pakistan. This makes us all the more anxious that disputes between these two States should be settled in a peaceful and amicable way by these two countries themselves.
What should be the position of the Council in the solution of this dispute? It has often been recalled here that it is not the first time the Council has had to consider this question. There are no essentially new elements in this problem. We therefore agree with those of our colleagues who see no reason to make a new examination of the legal and political arguments of the two parties. It is not that our delegation hesitates to take a stand. We have done so in the past; our stand is well known; but we do not want to reiterate it, because we think it would serve no great purpose to engage in a discussion which could not lead us to a solution that, as we have said, only the two parties acting in concert can reach.
The role of the Council should be to help and encourage the two parties to embark on peaceful negotiations. These parties have shown, we feel, that they are capable of embarking on this peaceful course; and although their exchanges of views are somewhat pointed and often impatient, we note with some satisfaction and hope that, at least to a certain extent, they are always receptive and ready to take the path of negotiations. We think that, by helping and encouraging the two parties along these lines, the Council would be respecting Article 33 of the Charter. Since the problem is complex and delicate, we agree with the preceding speakers who said that they did not believe it was appropriate for the Council to pass judgement on the matter by an ex cathedra decision in other words, to adopt a resolution.
In appealing to the goodwill, spirit of understanding, political wisdom and human responsibility of the two parties and trusting their maturity and realism, we think that we should not qualify this appeal by introducing controversial questions which, from the outset, would even at this stage constitute obstacles to holding of negotiations.
This is why our delegation has doubts about the idea of resorting to the mediation or good offices of another State or of a personality. Naturally, such mediation could prove useful, but it should come only as the result of prior agreement which could be reached by the two parties in the course of these negotiations; and even this understanding and an ensuing decision should be a matter for the two parties alone. We therefore believe that our action, which would of course be taken by agreement of all the members of the Council and in a form acceptable to both parties, should consist in an appeal to the parties to take steps to restore an atmosphere of moderation and re-establish harmony between the communities so as to prevent any recurrence of acts of violence. We should invite the two countries to resume their negotiations for a peaceful settlement of their disputes, and we should facilitate the opening of such negotiations. All the rest should be the task of the two parties themselves-a task which my delegation hopes the Council will do its best to facilitate through general agreement.