14021964 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Fedorenko (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1091 held on 14 February 1964

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Fedorenko (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1091 held on 14 February 1964

Mr. President, at the request of the Government of Pakistan, the Security Council is again examining the question of Kashmir. In the letter dated 16 January 1964 from the Minister for External Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the President of the Security Council it was stated that an immediate meeting of the Council was necessary "to consider the grave situation that has arisen in the State of Jammu and Kashmir" [S/5517].

The Government of India, for its part-as is clear from the statements made at the meetings of the Council by Mr. Chagla, the Minister of Education of India, and from the letter from the Permanent Representative of India addressed to the President of the Council-holds that there are no grounds for the discussion of this question in the Security Council, and points out in particular that nothing has happened recently that even remotely supports "the Pakistan allegations about the existence of a tense situation and an atmosphere of crisis" [S/5522, para. 1].

India's well-known position is that from the legal and constitutional standpoint Jammu and Kashmir is and continues to be Indian Union territory. With regard in particular to the demonstrations in Kashmir expressing grief at the theft of a Muslim religious relic, the Government of India, as is known, has denied the assertion that India had anything to do with it.

We have heard the statements made by the parties to the dispute, setting forth in detail the positions of India and Pakistan with regard to the question now being discussed by the Security Council, and the statements made by the representatives of Morocco, the Ivory Coast, the United Kingdom, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and others. The fact is, it is rather difficult to find anything in the circumstances that makes them appreciably different from those described in the course of previous discussions of the Kashmir question to which, if our recollection is correct, the Security Council has devoted more than 100 meetings since 1948.

The Soviet delegation would first of all emphasise that the religious and communal discord which persists in India and Pakistan is a legacy of the past, when hostility was deliberately kindled by the colonisers, who pursued an infamous policy of "divide and rule" in order to enslave the peoples and keep them in colonial servitude. Recent events both in India, where Muslims have suffered through the exacerbation of religious and communal discord, and in Pakistan, where Hindus have been persecuted, demonstrate once again the need to overcome that discord as quickly as possible and to put an end to that legacy of colonialism. The coloniser's policy of kindling animosity questionably does great harm to the interests of both the Indian and the Pakistan people. Attempts to heighten passions over differences in religious beliefs between some of the peoples of India and Pakistan can serve only those who even today would like to see the peoples of Asia torn asunder, those who seek to gamble on the unsettled state of relations between India and Pakistan, in the pursuit of interests which have nothing in common with the aims of preserving peace and friendship between peoples.

In the context of the Council's discussion of the India Pakistan dispute, attention should be drawn to the appeal made by President Radhakrishnan of India to the President of Pakistan for joint steps to prevent further religious and communal incidents. In his letter of 16 January 1964 addressed to the President of Pakistan, the President of India expressed concern at such incidents, which and I quote-"not only poison the relations between our countries''-that is, between India and Pakistan-"but affect the lives of millions of persons who seek nothing but to live as good citizens in their respective countries" [S/5522, annex I, para. 9]; and as a first step he proposed that an immediate joint appeal should be made to the peoples of India and Pakistan to live harmony. peace and

The fact that the Security Council is again obliged to revert to consideration of the Kashmir question confirms once more, in striking fashion, the correctness of the conclusion that territorial disputes, the problems of frontiers, and unilateral or mutual claims of States to each other's territory most often give rise to dangerous friction between countries in different parts of the world. For this very reason Mr. Khrushchev, the Head of the Soviet Government, addressed to the Heads of State of the countries of the world, at the end of 1963, a message proposing the conclusion of an international agreement providing for the renunciation by States of the use of force for the settlement of territorial disputes or boundary questions.

In that message Mr. Khrushchev pointed out that many young sovereign States which recently won national independence have inherited from the colonial regimes a large number of artificially embroiled border problems. Indeed, a glance at the map of the world today will show scores, if not hundreds, of districts, sovereignty over which is disputed by various States on the basis of arguments and considerations relating to history, ethnography, blood affinity, religion, and so forth. Unfortunately, these disputes occur not only between scholars but also between States possessing armed forces, in some cases quite large. Hence in the majority of territorial disputes there is a danger that relations between the parties will become aggravated, a danger of armed conflict which may constitute a threat to peace throughout the world.

It is a highly pertinent fact that the border conflicts and territorial disputes between some Asian countries are having a very adverse effect on the lives of their peoples this at a time when it is most important for the peoples of the Asian countries, including both India and Pakistan, to raise the level of their economy, lay the foundations for a modern industry and attain a higher level of living. Surely it should be clear that this calls for tremendous efforts and, above all, for peace and tranquillity on their borders. In that connexion, Mr. Bhutto, the Minister for External Affairs of Pakistan, rightly observed in his statement to the Council [1087th meeting] that the peoples of Pakistan and India had won their freedom in order to fashion their lives with the dignity and self-respect, free from privation and fear, to remove the sufferings that their peoples had endured since human memory could recall.

I am bound to say that, when territorial disputes and border conflicts between Asian States not only exist but sometimes assume aggravated forms, those States are compelled to maintain and even increase their armed forces, thus using their resources in an unproductive manner. This can scarcely be said to benefit the peoples of countries which have recently thrown off the colonial yoke.

As to the substance of the Kashmir problem, the Soviet Union's position in principle has, as we all know, been repeatedly stated by Mr. Khrushchev, the Head of the Soviet Government, and by the representatives of the Soviet Union here in the Security Council chamber. The position of the Soviet Union is that the question of Kashmir's belonging to India has already been decided by the Kashmiri people.

The Soviet delegation is firmly of the opinion that the India-Pakistan dispute should be settled directly by the parties concerned-India and Pakistan-and, of course, exclusively by peaceful means. The parties to this dispute are themselves capable of taking steps to relax the tensions which exist between them. We should like to point out, with special emphasis, that this requires a calm and normal atmosphere.

Mr. Chagla, the Minister of Education of India, in his statement to the Council on 5 February [1088th meeting], stressed in particular that India would continue to work towards amelioration of its relations with Pakistan and that those relations should be based on friendship, equality, co operation and mutual respect, as between two friendly and neighbouring countries. He expressed the conviction that the peoples of India and Pakistan wish to live in peace and friendship.

With reference to the steps which should be taken in the current situation, Mr. Chagla observed that the passing of resolution of the Kashmir question by the Council would aggravate rather than improve matters. He said that the first thing was to restore normal conditions in the disturbed area of India and Pakistan and to bring about inter-communal unity and harmony in both countries; the Government of India, he added, would welcome a meeting of Ministers from India and Pakistan to discuss ways and means. Secondly, Mr. Chagla called upon Pakistan to declare unequivocally along with India that the two countries would never resort to war and would settle all their differences by peaceful means. He stated in that connection that India welcomed Mr. Khrushchev's proposal for the renunciation of the use of force for the settlement of territorial disputes.

The Soviet delegation views these considerations with understanding, and feels that they reflect a healthy and realistic approach in keeping with the interests of both parties and of peace in Asia and throughout the world. We should like to hope that the examination of the India-Pakistan dispute by the Security Council, the United Nations organ responsible for the maintenance of peace and international security, will be so conducted as to make for the establishment of conditions in which the parties directly concerned-India and Pakistan-can settle their dispute themselves by peaceful means. The Soviet delegation also expresses the hope that, in the course of the consultations in progress aiming to an appropriate outcome of the discussion of this question in the Council, all parties will adopt a business like approach and seek a solution with will be in the interests of keeping the peace and reducing tension.