18051964 Text of the Speech made by the President Mr. Roger Seydoux (France) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1117 held on 18 May 1964

Text of the Speech made by the President Mr. Roger Seydoux (France) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1117 held on 18 May 1964

I should like to begin this meeting by apologizing to the Ministers of India and Pakistan for having kept them waiting so long, but, as they must know, this was due to circumstances beyond the President's control.

At the close of the meeting on 13 May 1964 [1116th meeting], the Council, on the proposal of the representative of Brazil supported by the representative of Norway, was good enough to ask me to attempt to draw up the conclusions from our debate.

It seemed to me, and I believe to my colleagues, that the task was to investigate the possibility of finding common conclusions in which all members. of the Council could acquiesce.

I have been carrying out this task in consultation with all the members. I must now place on record that, despite the goodwill displayed by my colleagues, it has not been possible to reach complete agreement. Unanimity has not been achieved on one of the important points under discussion.

Consequently, your President is not in a position to identify any comprehensive conclusion. His report will contain three points. He must confine himself to a statement, in the first part to those points on which there was no difference of view between the members of the Council, and, in the second part, of the different opinions indicated on a further point :

"I"(a) The members of the Council noted that this week's debate was a continuation of our discussions of February and March on the question of Jammu and Kashmir. They recalled that they had already, particularly during the debate in February, stated the views of their Governments on the basic facts of the problem, including the relevant United Nations resolutions, the question as to the juridical status of Jammu and Kashmir, and the principles of the Charter applicable to the case. They confirmed that the statements which they had made at that time were still valid;

"(b) The members of the Council expressed their concern with respect to two great countries which have everything to gain from re-establishing good relations with each other and whose present disputes, particularly that centering upon Jammu and Kashmir, should be settled amicably in the interest of world peace;

"(c) The members of the Council expressed their feeling that recent developments were such as might lead to the adoption of more flexible positions, to better mutual understanding, and therefore to a situation in which conversations between the parties concerned would have better prospects of leading to a settlement;

"(d) The members of the Council expressed their conviction that everything should be done to consolidate those favourable factors and to avoid jeopardising those prospects, and that this required an attitude of conciliatory moderation on the part of both parties and an attitude of caution, but also of vigilant attention, on the part of the United Nations;

"(e) The members of the Council expressed the hope that both parties would refrain from any act which might aggravate the situation and that they would take steps calculated to re-establish an atmosphere of moderation between the two countries and peace and harmony between the communities;

"(f) The members of the Council expressed the hope that, in the light of our recent debates, the two countries concerned would resume their contacts in the near future with a view to settling their disputes, particularly that centring upon Jammu and Kashmir, by negotiation; "II"Several members of the Council expressed the view that the Secretary-General of the United Nations might possibly give useful assistance to the parties in order to facilitate the resumption of negotiations on the question of Jammu and Kashmir, or might help them continue such negotiations in the event of the latter encountering difficulties. Other members of the Council, however, expressed the view that the negotiations between India and Pakistan might be complicated by any outside intervention, and that even the principle of having recourse to the Secretary-General should be a matter for agreement between the parties.