Text of the Speech made by Mr, Benhima (Morocco) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1195 held on 12 May 1964
Text of the Speech made by Mr, Benhima (Morocco) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1195 held on 12 May 1964
In considering the India-Pakistan question, there are many factors which might lead the Moroccan delegation to approach the debate today with some scepticism; never has any problem held the attention and interest of the Security Council for so long or so frequently. It may not be one of those anomalies of international life which were bequeathed to the United Nations at its birth, but it does constitute one of the most distinctive threads in the fabric of its history; it is still one of the Organisation's main preoccupations, and having already taken on all the earmarks of a chronic crisis, it may well become-if it is not already so to some extent-the bitter proof of the limitations of the United Nations. Yet the permanent members of the Council and the representatives of more than thirty countries who have successively assumed the responsibilities of Council membership since 1948 have gone on steadily, exerting tremendous efforts and exhausting all the resources of their countries' political genius and of their personal talents and experience. My delegation, in approaching this question for the second time in the Council, does so in the awareness that the delegations which preceded it are entitled to compliments and its gratitude.
Solutions hitherto were sought and found in a judicious balance between historical, political and legal considerations. Principles genuinely based on the United Nations Charter provided the foundation for the spirit and the terms of the resolutions successively adopted on this question, and the acceptance and reaffirmation of these resolutions by both the interested parties constitutes an acknowledgment of the Council's fairness and objectivity. The reason why we-the third generation, as it were, of the Council since 1948-are now required once more to take up the question if not because of any shortcomings on the part of the Council but because, unfortunately, the principles established for its settlement could not be applied and the continuance of discord between the two parties prolonged the dispute and cast doubt upon the authority of the decisions already taken.
It goes without saying that Morocco would have been much happier not to have to deal with a conflict between two countries whose friendship and excellent relations with Morocco have constantly been in the forefront in its dealings with and interests in Asia.
Nor is this in any way arbitrary. The struggle of the Indian subcontinent was one of the movements which directly nourished the liberation movements, not only in North Africa, but wherever the drive for freedom was at that time still timid and hesitant. The radiance cast by a man like Gandhi had its reflection in the lives of many leaders and influenced the will of many peoples, who are indebted to him both for the virtues of struggle by pacific means and for strength of purpose in winning their freedom.
Together with Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, however, one of Gandhi's intimates was Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, who although brought up in a different spiritual environment, trod the same heroic path in friendship and solidarity with the master of India and his best disciple.
To other liberation movements, this community of hope and action between the leading figures of the two main spiritual families of India was both a symbol and an example of what national unity should be, irrespective of dividing lines of ethnic or religious origin.
On the day when India and Pakistan became free, many leaders and militant youths in my own country suffered prison or exile, perhaps for the first time, because of their participation in demonstrations to which that great event has given rise in countries still seeking sources of inspiration for their future action.
That the subcontinent unfortunately paid the price of partition for its freedom was a cause of grief which, undoubtedly, all its children have not yet stifled. We also note that, unfortunately, they have not bound up the wound.
So many of the present friends of India and Pakistan were unable at the time either to take action to prevent the tragedy or to intervene in the years immediately following to correct the aberration or to limit its consequences.
The principles on which India based its internal structure and its external policy were to cast their aura over the world in the same way as the philosophy which underlay its struggle. Thus my country sought to strengthen its ties with India from the very first months of its independence, to stand with it internationally in support of the same policies, and to base its action on the same values-the defence of liberty, the right of peoples to self-determination, devotion to the United Nations, peaceful coexistence and international cooperation.
These principles have become a credo in the African Asian family, and constant fidelity to them has become a criterion by which to judge the sincerity and independence of its members' policies.
We, like India, have built up our friendships, on our own continent and elsewhere, not on the basis of identity of political systems or adherence to one ideology, but on mutual respect and a common purpose underlying international action which at times is differently inspired. Together with India, we have defended our mutual friends at the cost of repeated misunderstandings and difficulties which, in some cases, have seriously affected our respective national interests.
In recalling these facts, my purpose is to reaffirm that friendship and cooperation with India remains a fundamental and unchanging part of our policy. The Government of India has received assurances of this on various occasions, and I wish to reaffirm it today to the delegation headed by the Minister of Education, as it was reiterated by His Majesty the King of Morocco and the members of his Government to the two. delegation which recently paid visits of friendship to my country.
However, while we repeat this assurance because it is in keeping with our complete adherence to the series of intangible principles to which I referred a moment ago, it will scarcely come as a surprise to the Indian delegation when I state in this Council that we adhere with the same constancy and fervour to the principles of the Charter and, of course, to resolutions adopted by any United Nations organ with respect to any problem, whenever such resolutions scrupulously reflect the provisions of the Charter.
My delegation is proud to follow in the footsteps of a number of representative of the African-Asian family who have unflinchingly viewed their responsibilities in the Council as being to uphold, not in an emergency but at all times, the values and principles which alone confer on the Council its moral and legal authority. While it may at times be clever to set these principles lightly aside, it is always more honest, although sometimes more difficult, to renew them with sincerity. On several occasions, the Council adopted resolutions on the problem now before it which had the merit, not only of providing a possible solution, but also of being solemnly accepted by both the parties involved; it was confidently left to them to implement the resolutions in a framework of cooperation and mutual willingness to find, by peaceful means, a solution to a tragedy that inflicted equal suffering on both their peoples, though neither of them in fact bore the initial responsibility. I am not convinced that time has robbed these resolutions of their validity. My fear is rather that time may have affected the excellent frame of mind of the two parties and that the frequent confrontations before the Council may have further prolonged this dispute and introduced new features into it.
My delegation was greatly saddened to find the statements of the heads of both the Indian and the Pakistan delegations raised points relating to religious antagonism or differences of foreign policy. I am not convinced that it can be in any way helpful for the Council, in appraising the specific problem brought before it, to allow itself to be led into areas where individual liberty and the free choice of foreign policy by both sides scarcely concern it.
I am sure that the Indian Minister of Education will believe me when I say that my delegation has never, either here or elsewhere, attributed any importance whatsoever to the religious component of the problem, which may perhaps. shed light on some of its aspects but which cannot in any way alter the fact that this is a territorial conflict bequeathed by the authors of partition to the two States which they set up. The Pakistan Minister for External Affairs knows that His Majesty the King of Morocco recently repeated to the Pakistan delegation visiting my country that our responsibility in the Council, if it is to remain objective, must transcend emotional or subjective elements, which must be eliminated from such a conflict at all costs.
Unfortunately, we find some degree of fanaticism among the defenders of any cause, even when the antagonists are atheists, and violence in fratricidal struggles is often more extreme than between hereditary enemies.
Religion cannot explain how a quarrel takes place when politics is powerless to solve the problem in dispute. Just as I do not doubt the Indian people's tradition of tolerance and reaffirm this to the representative of India, who is custodian of its spiritual greatness and its moral virtues-neither do I doubt the respect which even the most ardent Pakistan militant has for the Indian, who is still, in more ways than one, his brother..
The Council has heard arguments on both sides concerning the validity of the friendships or alliances chosen and entered into by Pakistan and India, now or in the past. Here again, analyses and judgements of the parties concerning their foreign policies cannot be taken as positive contributions to the Council's own analyses or judgements. The relations which India has deemed fit to maintain with its immediate neighbours, on the Asian continent and outside Asia, in order to consolidate its independence and accelerate its development, and the friendship or assistance it enjoys today from any given group of Powers in order to safeguard its territorial integrity, may have different repercussions in the various capital cities. In any event, the freedom of India is vital to the world to which both we and India belong.
If, however, Pakistan has deemed fit, at a specific moment in its history, to have recourse to a type of assistance capable of securing it against an attack the possibility or imminence of which Pakistan alone could gauge, and if it is now offered a policy of good neighbourliness which may lessen its fears, the safeguarding of its freedom in a new context of international relations is just as precious to us as before. So far as the Council is concerned, the freedom of both parties is an intrinsic part of international peace, which is our responsibility.
The Moroccan delegation would have wished to find, in the arguments expounded in the Council, more that would help us either to go further along the lines of the Council's earlier decisions or to chart a new course which might be acceptable to both parties and might lead them, either alone or with such assistance as might be desirable, to a peaceful settlement of this most unfortunate conflict. If the resolutions laboriously arrived at and adopted by the Council have proved inapplicable in practice while the conflict itself was moving towards a deadlock, if the advice and assistance of mutual friends have been unable to break through the rigid stand which the parties seem to have assumed in recent years, and if the search for a solution by the parties themselves, in direct discussions, has been equally unproductive, the council is nevertheless still responsible; and the importance of what is at stake, both to the two parties themselves and to world peace, is such that the Council must maintain its concern and its responsibility for ensuring that a final break between the parties or a long period of impotence on the part of the Council itself does not cause a conflagration in an area already unsettled enough. This would tend to spread outwards and jeopardise a balance achieved with difficulty in the Asian continent.
It is encouraging that both India and Pakistan continue to be ardent supporters of the role of the United Nations and of the quest for a peaceful and negotiated settlement. They both tell us that the higher interest of the population of Kashmir continues to be the sole objective of their policies. The will of the people of Kashmir can be expressed in various forms and by a number of procedures. Even on the basis of the present widely divergent positions, a further effort by the Council might be made with the collaboration of both parties, since neither of them closes the door to the possibility of a further attempt at bilateral talks, and these would not a priori exclude either the past findings of the Council or the current facts of a conflict constantly changing in character. However, such bilateral negotiations should likewise not exclude the Council's responsibility or its interest in their progress and in any results they might achieve.
The principle of direct negotiations would thus be preserved without the Council relinquishing its jurisdiction or washing its hands of a problem for which it has assumed responsibilities for the past sixteen years and must continue to assume them until it is finally settled.
The Secretary-General has given us proof on several occasions of his wisdom and skill. The moral authority attaching to his office and his person and the advantages of the direct and discreet contacts which he can make encourage my delegation to suggest that the Council should once again, subject to consent, call upon those attributes to help the two parties to resume direct negotiations-on mutually agreed bases in the course of which the Secretary-General could both been equally unproductive, the council is nevertheless still responsible; and the importance of what is at stake, both to the two parties themselves and to world peace, is such that the Council must maintain its concern and its responsibility for ensuring that a final break between the parties or a long period of impotence on the part of the Council itself does not cause a conflagration in an area already unsettled enough. This would tend to spread outwards and jeopardise a balance achieved with difficulty in the Asian continent.
It is encouraging that both India and Pakistan continue to be ardent supporters of the role of the United Nations and of the quest for a peaceful and negotiated settlement. They both tell us that the higher interest of the population of Kashmir continues to be the sole objective of their policies. The will of the people of Kashmir can be expressed in various forms and by a number of possible procedures. Even on the basis of the present widely divergent positions, a further effort by the Council might be made with the collaboration of both parties, since neither of them closes the door to the possibility of a further attempt at bilateral talks, and these would not a priori exclude either the past findings of the Council or the current facts of a conflict constantly changing in character. However, such bilateral negotiations should likewise not exclude the Council's responsibility or its interest in their progress and in any results they might achieve.
The principle of direct negotiations would thus be preserved without the Council's relinquishing its jurisdiction or waits hands of a problem for which it has assumed responsibilities for the past sixteen years and must continue to assume them until it is finally settled.
The Secretary-General has given us proof on several occasions of his wisdom and skill. The moral authority attaching to his office and his person and the advantages of the direct and discreet contacts which he can make encourage my delegation to suggest that the Council should once again, subject to consent, call upon those attributes to help the two parties to resume direct negotiations-on mutually agreed bases in the course of which the Secretary-General could both lend his advice and assistance to the parties and inform the Council as to the progress of the negotiations and the results to which we hope they might lead.
If the Council should feel that such a suggestion is acceptable, my delegation would be quite prepared to consider, with the other members of the Council and in collaboration with the Secretary-General and the two parties, the possible form and scope of such a mission.
Morocco is not prepared to admit-whether as a friend of Pakistan and India and a member of the same African-Asian family or as a member of the Council that events n. ust alwaysbe stronger than human goodwill.