12051964 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Usher (Ivory Coast) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1115 held on 12 May 1964

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Usher (Ivory Coast) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1115 held on 12 May 1964

After the theft of the sacred hair of the Prophet. Mohammed, which gave rise to the demonstrations and clashes. between the Moslem and Hindu communities, first of Kashmir and later of India and Pakistan, the world was suddenly and understandably shocked at the emergence of a conflict and a problem already sixteen years old yet still unsolved, in spite of the useful attempts made by the United Nations to bring the two parties together.

So tragic and threatening for peace in that part of the world were the developments following this incident, this joke in bad taste, that on 3 February 1964 [1087th meeting] and subsequently on 17 and 20 March 1964 [1104th and 1105th meetings] the Security Council met at the request of Pakistan. We know what part the Council has played in this matter in its anxiety to avoid a crisis.

Having heard the statements of the parties concerned more violently, unfortunately, than before-my delegation, in taking the floor today, wishes to express satisfaction at the results we have achieved regarding the protection of minorities and the reassurance of the masses. These results are doubtless meagre compared with the basic problem underlying the incident of the stolen hair, namely, the problem of the peaceful coexistence of the Indian and Pakistan peoples and, more particularly, the problem of Jammu and Kashmir which deeply affects this coexistence and calls for a solution acceptable to both parties, bearing in mind above all the wishes of the Kashmir people.

This was the aim of the invitations to negotiate which formed part of the general agreement reached during the recent meeting devoted by the Council to the question. My delegation recognizes, of course, that for all the goodwill expressed by both India and Pakistan and the relative calm of their populations, the basic problem remains, as is pointed out above, but it seems reasonable to believe that though the situation as it now stands has undoubtedly not ceased to be a matter of concern for international security, it should nevertheless be kept at government level. For now that the unbridled fury of the masses has given way to diplomacy based on United Nations recommendations, the immediate dangers of conflict are less apparent, and my delegation believes that since the Council has thus fulfilled its peaceful mission, the parties should resume negotiations with a view to finding a solution acceptable to both sides-at any rate in conformity with the best interests of the people of Kashmir.

Negotiations would be facilitated by the co-operation of influential persons and political and spiritual leaders of Kashmir, which, as the main interested party, should be a constant point of reference in the inevitable give-and-take as the negotiations proceed.

In this respect, we feel that in the light of new facts, a solution along these lines should be sought by the Security Council before it is in a position to take a definite stand on the problem. In other words, it should confirm the results of the negotiations if they are successfully concluded on the basis of the recommendations already mentioned, which require the parties to take into account the interests of the peoples of Kashmir in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. When we spoke just now of making use of new facts we were thinking of course of taking advantage of the situation arising from the release of the uncontested leader of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah.

My delegation regards it as particularly fortunate that the Sheikh was released in the present circumstances, and that after eleven years of captivity he has approached the problem with considerable realism, without passion or bitterness, but always hearing in mind the interests of the people of Kashmir, the vast majority of whom he still represents, to judge by the welcome he was given on his return to his country. Since his release, Sheikh Abdullah has been negotiating with the Prime Minister of India, working unremittingly, as himself puts it, on certain proposals which might constitute the basis for a solution acceptable both to India and to Pakistan and Kashmir. Nor did he decline the invitation extended to him by President Ayub Khan to visit Pakistan. In other words, he might perhaps be able to play a role in this conflict in which a country is the stake.

Here, within the Security Council, apropos of similar disputes between neighbouring States, my delegation has tried briefly to define for purposes of reference the underlying aim of the international policy followed by the Government of the Ivory Coast. It was, we said, the indefatigable search for good neighbourliness, the a priori acceptance of the good faith of any partner in negotiations, and the solution of disputes by diplomatic means which is binding upon Member States under the United Nations Charter.

My delegation feels that the general criteria underlying these fundamental principles apply aptly to the present stage of the problem of Kashmir which divides India and Pakistan. Statements by Presidents, leaders and politicians of India and Pakistan lead us to believe this, for they are all based on an unquestionable desire to seek a peaceful and just solution to the dispute through bilateral negotiations.

Indeed, despite certain displays of feeling still perceptible, the outcome of a very natural pride, the chances of success for such negotiations are undeniable. In saying this, my delegation is not closing its eyes to the difficulties which will undoubtedly have to be overcome at the outset. It recognizes that for one reason or another the resumption negotiations may not be spontaneous or that there may be certain psychological difficulties. Similarly, during the negotiations, an obstacle may arise and threaten to bring them to an end.

In this case, in the opinion of my delegation, we should avoid hasty recourse to the Security Council, for the ensuing debate would become highly inflamed and would merely accelerate the breakdown of the talks or make it a certainty. In order to avoid such an eventuality, my delegation feels that the Council would be very wise to entrust a certain role to the Secretary-General. His wisdom, his balanced judgement, his experience of the matter-qualities which have won him the unanimous admiration of us all as Members of the United Nations should be placed at the disposal of our two friends, India and Pakistan at difficult moments during their negotiations.

Thus, my delegation strongly advocates that the Secretary General should ease the way for the resumption of negotiations and their successful conclusion, if necessary.

In the light of all this, and having already noted the favourable developments in the long-standing dead-lock between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, what can we put forward by way of conclusion ?

To sum up, it seems to us that the Security Council, at the conclusion of this debate should give due weight to the new development referred to above as an additional factor in the case.

On this basis, the delegation of the Ivory Coast suggests that the Council should reiterate to the parties concerned its initial recommendations for a resumption of negotiations with a view to finding a solution which is just, honourable and in conformity with the interests of the Kashmiri people. Also, the Security Council should request the Secretary General to assist, if necessary, in the resumption of the negotiations, their progress and their successful conclusion in case of difficulties. These are the reflections which my delegation felt it should put forward at this meeting on the dispute involving Jammu and Kashmir.

Bearing in mind the meagre headway made up to now in the attempts to settle this problem, recalling the sad memory of the repeated scenes of bloodshed which this dispute has so often provoked, and placing above all else the fundamental interests of the people of Kashmir, whose considerable history of tragedies has in many ways been complicated and aggravated by this unfortunate opposition between the two sister States of Pakistan and India. My delegation unreservedly supports frank and friendly bilateral negotiations with the authorised spokesmen of Kashmir brought in to reconcile the views. It may well be that where there has been intransigence and incomprehension there will be flexibility and success and that everything will conspire to enable India and Pakistan to achieve what we called in this Council, in other circumstances, the inevitable and logical conclusion of their development, namely, good neighbourliness and friendship, to which they are insolubly bound by a long common history.

My delegation believes that an improvement can be brought about in the relationship between India and Pakistan and it considers that the Kashmiri leaders, who are the main interested parties, could help to bring it about.