27101965 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Usher (Ivory Coast) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1248 held on 27 October 1965
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Usher (Ivory Coast) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1248 held on 27 October 1965
After eighteen years of fruitless search for a solution, the latent conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has in recent months taken a dramatic turn. The threats, the verbal violence, the sporadic military actions and the subversive acts, added to the already existing tension, have degenerated into a bloody and fratricidal conflict.
The Government of the Ivory Coast, which is on friendly terms with the two great Asian countries of India and Pakistan, has watched with much emotion and apprehension the outbreak of violence in that region. India and Pakistan are great, not merely because of the size of their territories or their populations, but because of their civilization, their religious feelings, their age-old wisdom and, in particular, because of the metaphysical strength inherent in the doctrine of non violence taught by the Master, Gandhi, and the subsequent treasury of talent amassed by the great Nehru.
The Ivory Coast, which considers non-violence the essence of moral perfection and has adopted it as the primary element of its international policy, could not stand by unconcerned and watch it fail; that is why we participated in the drafting and adoption of the Security Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of all armed personnel back to the positions held by them before 5 August 1965. The parties, displaying a wisdom which does them honour, accepted the essential provisions of those resolutions and proclaimed a cease-fire. In fact, however, only the pitched battle has been halted and the firing continues. The Secretary-General's report of 23 October 1965 [S/6710/Add.5] casts a specially disturbing light on the situation.
Press reports and documents transmitted daily by the parties give accounts of the various violations and tell-unfortunately of the virtual disruption of the cease-fire, indicating that tension is once again at its height and that war might break out again at any moment.
This situation prevails only because resolution 211 (1965) has not been fully applied, because the parties are holding on to what they have won by force and are therefore still confronting each other, and also because each of them, with a view to a possible resumption of hostilities, is seeking to improve its strategic position. In these circumstances, the Council must do its utmost to secure full implementation of its resolutions. The Council's resolutions were adopted at a time when peace had been broken in one part of the world, and their aim was therefore to restore peace. These resolutions are decisions, and under the Charter the parties are committed to respect such decisions.
However, how can the Security Council carry out its mission of peace if the parties to the dispute-which, moreover, are influential Members of the United Nations-do not collaborate with it? How can the Council be asked to find a solution to a conflict when, at the same time, the parties affirm that they are not prepared to make any concessions? Dialogue and negotiation require a certain attitude of mind, a mutual willingness not to impose all one's views on one's neighbour, and an atmosphere of concession.
The Security Council is acting only in accordance with Chapters VI and VII of the Chapter. Under Chapter VII, the Council may use force to restore peace or to prevent aggression, but never to solve a contentious dispute between two States. In the last case, the only recourse is to Chapter VI, which requires not only the goodwill of the parties but also their necessary and essential collaboration. That is why the Council must demand an effective cease-fire and reiterate its request for the withdrawal of all armed personnel back to the positions held by them before 5 August 1965, as stated in operative paragraph 1 of resolution 211 (1965).
The Secretary-General has taken steps to that end and we must encourage him to continue his efforts and to ensure that India and Pakistan cooperate with him and with the United Nations observers. But we should perhaps also ask our colleagues in the Security Council to cooperate with the Secretary General. You cannot give with one hand and take away with the other, as the saying goes. The Council requested the Secretary General to provide the necessary assistance to ensure supervision of the cease-fire and the withdrawal of all armed personnel. What is necessary depends on the length of the frontiers and the kind of warfare the parties are engaged in. We believe that the Secretary-General, in acceding to our request and in taking steps which, perhaps because of their inadequacy, have not yet been successful, has not so far exceeded his mandate. Accordingly, we shall not criticise him prematurely.
In any event, the Council had the opportunity of knowing the financial implications of the resolution it had adopted; all it had to do was to ask the Secretary-General for a preliminary report. This is a perfectly normal procedure and in certain cases is obligatory under the rules of procedure.
The Council could also have specified the number of United Nations observers in Kashmir, as it did in the case of Santo Domingo. It may, however, have thought that the situation called for prompt action and that it was best to leave that decision to the Secretary-General. The Council was right to do so and it was right for the Secretary-General to act as he did.
Our intention was merely to encourage the Secretary General in the fulfilment of the difficult task we entrusted to him. I am sure that the Council as a whole, faced with a problem, so delicate because of the extent to which the feelings of both parties are involved, would not wish to lose its way in this labyrinthine tangle of procedure.
My delegation therefore believes that the present debate should strive to create a propitious atmosphere for renewing negotiations between the parties. By making the cease-fire effective, by supporting the measures advocated by the Secretary-General for the withdrawal of the armed forces, by inviting the parties to cooperate with the Secretary-General and the United Nations observers in order to achieve that objective, the Security Council, with the Secretary-General's collaboration, will be able to appropriate diplomatic means to seek a political solution which, without offending the susceptibilities of either party, will enable them to eliminate a latent cause of war between two brother countries.