Text of the Speech made by Mr. Rifa i (Jordan) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1239 held on 17 September 1965

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Rifa'i (Jordan) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1239 held on 17 September 1965

After having listened to the highly important statement of the Secretary-General at today's meeting and to the weighty ideas which he introduced, I would prefer, with your consent, to make my statement at the next meeting of the Council, which you may wish, Mr. President, to convene soon. However, since I am taking the floor-and with my apologies to the members of the Council for this short prolongation of this meeting-1 feel in duty bound to clarify one point which was brought up by the representative of India in the statement he has just made. I do so because the point raised is related to the meaning of Security Council resolution 210 (1965) and because I notice that the representative of India has attached special significance to it.

I understood him to have interpreted the date of 5 August 1965 contained in Council resolution 210 (1965), as signifying the beginning of what he called aggression by Pakistan against India. Inasmuch as such an interpretation reflects on the intentions of the authors of the said resolution, my delegation cannot subscribe to it. Having had the privilege of taking part in the consultations and discussions which brought about the text of that resolution, I feel that I am in a position to say that the meaning suggested by the representative of India does not represent the understanding of my delegation as one of the authors of the said resolution. The date of 5 August was intended merely to be an indication regarding the lines behind which the armed forces of both India and Pakistan were asked to withdraw. It was no ant to judgement on the claim of infiltration or to establish a fact in this regard.

At the last two meetings, the members of the Council never discussed at any length the question of infiltration. Furthermore, time did not allow us to discuss more serious developments, such as the armed operations against the international boundaries of Pakistan.

As the Secretary-General stated in his report the events since 5 August consisted "of a large number of violations of the cease-fire line by crossings of the line, by firing across it with artillery pieces, and by the occupation of position on the wrong side of the line" [S/6651, para. 5].

Prior to those events there were also similar violations and more serious events. In the same report, the Secretary General stated:

"Among the most serious of the violations was one that occurred in May of this year when Indian troops in battalion strength attacked and captured Pakistan positions in the Kargil area of Kashmir and remained in occupation of them. In the interest of preserving the cease-fire line, I appealed to the Government of India to withdraw its troops from the Pakistan side of the line." [Ibid., para. 4]. That chain of events could also be traced back to the beginning of 1965. Regarding violations committed up to mid-June, the Secretary-General said that some "took the form of heavy and prolonged firing' from weapons up to the caliber of field artillery" [Ibid.].

I should add that the date 5 August was introduced after a thorough and considerable discussion, as a substitute for an earlier text of the draft resolution which called on India and Pakistan to withdraw their armed personnel behind the cease fire line and the international boundary. It was for the sake of accommodating the position of all members around this table without going into details-that the mentioning of this date was thought to serve the purpose of defining the lines in question.

I wish further to add that the draft resolution [S/6662] was introduced to the Council without any explanations. I recall with special appreciation the words of my friend and colleague Mr. Ramani, representative of Malaysia, when he introduced the draft resolution. He said:

"If this draft resolution proceeds on any findings at all, it proceeds on two undeniable facts: first, the Security Council is still waiting for some hopeful or helpful response to its appeal for a cease-fire and, secondly, the conflict is obviously expanding and spreading. This draft resolution, therefore, merely decides that the Security Council, being naturally concerned with he serious developments, is anxious to do something and to it at once to give effect to its own resolution, so that this bloody conflict is halted and does not spread." [1238th meeting, para. 65].

I am making this clarification in fairness to the meaning of resolution 210 (1965).