What Mr Graham meant when he referred, not by incident, to 'the junction of the forces of strategic geography' was recently made clear by the  Commander of the United States Fleet in the Pacific, Admiral Arthus Radford, after his visit to Karachi on November 12, 1952. As reported in the Pakistani semi-official publication Dawn, Admiral Radford said that 'Pakistan occupies a strategic position and is bound to play an important role in the world-wide struggle against communism..' Dawn said on November 11, that the American military plan for this area 'consists of setting up air bases in Pakistani territory within ninety minutes flying time of important industrial areas in the Soviet Union'. This, it seems, is the true meaning of 'strategic geography'. Why then, to borrow the words of the United Kingdom representative, Sir Gladwyn Jebb, work out methods and procedures that would enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir freely to state their will as regards accession' Is not the falsity of such talk obvious to all' In spite of the fact that India had categorically stated its view that it was impossible to admit the replacement of Indian troops by foreign troops of any kind, Mr Graham returns to this question in his fourth report. This time the oft-rejected proposal concerning United Nations troops is presented in the form of operational and administrative control by the   United Nations through neutral or local officers over part of the Azad Kashmir troops, so as, in Mr Graham's idea, to remove themfrom the authority of the Pakistani High Command. 

The United States and the United Kingdom, following the  course of intervention in the internal affairs not only of Kashmir, but also of India and Pakistan, are trying to impose their own plans and wills on them, using the question of so-called United Nations troops as a weapon of blackmail and intimidation. The joint draft resolution submitted to the Security Council by the United States and the United Kingdom on November 6 and the explanatory statements by the United Kingdom representative Sir Gladwyn Jebb and the United States representative Mr Gross, are eloquent on this point. The draft resolution is very much like an ultimatum requiring the parties to reach an agreement on the number of troops as proposed in the draft resolution, and the Government of India and Pakistan 'immediately' to start negotiations in New York, as stated in one of the paragraphs of the draft, and to submit to the Security Council the necessary reports within thirty days of the adoption of the draft resolution. Apparently the authors of this resolution have no great hopes of its 'success' and have had to resort to their favourite method, intimidation, using in this case the proposal to send United Nations troops into the territory of Kashmir. 

It is quite clear that the whole activity of the so-called United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan--an activity which, as is well known, has ended in complete failure--and the activity of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan appointed by the Security Council, as well as the proposals for 'arbitration', mediation etc., were based on the false, and the United Nations inadmissible, principle of intervention in the internal affairs of Kashmir. The same may, with good reason, be said of the draft resolution submitted by the United Kingdom and the United States for the consideration of the Security Council. Like all earlier resolutions, plans and recommendations, it excludes any possibility of a solution of the Kashmir question by the people of Kashmir themselves without outside pressure or interference from the United Kingdom and the United States. The draft resolution rules out any possibility of the people of Kashmir using their lawful right to self-determination. 

The USSR government, maintaining the right of peoples large and small to national independence and national sovereignty, holds that the only correct method by which the problems of Kashmir can and must be solved is to enable the people of Kashmir to freely decide their own fate, not at the dictation of United States representatives under cover of the name of the United Nations, but by freely expressing their own will. The only proper way to solve this question is for the Security Council to refrain from sanctioning interference in the internal affairs of Kashmir by various representatives who are working to further the interests of the ruling circles of the United States and the United Kingdom. The Security Council should be guided by the principles of the right of self-determination and of the equality of the peoples as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations. The correct way to solve this question would be to enable the people of Kashmir to take their fate into their own hands. This can be done by having the status of Kashmir determination by a constituent assembly elected by the peoples of Kashmir itself on a democratic basis.
 

Previous Article

Next Article