the commissioner, and the Ethiopian Emperor. During the transition period, until September 15, 1952, the United Kingdom would continue as the administering authority and would take the necessary steps leading to the convening of an Eritrean Assembly and the organization of governmental organs staffed by Eritreans.

Some delegations, aside from the Soviet bloc, while sympathetic toward the idea of federation, were hesitant to adopt the 14-nation plan without amendment. However, both Ethiopia and Italy, whose interests were particularly involved, indicated that they were prepared to accept the plan as it had been presented. The United States strongly urged its adoption as a reasonable if not perfect solution to a problem which had defied settlement since the end of World War II. On November 24 the Ad Hoc Committee rejected the Soviet and Polish proposals by a vote in which each paragraph of the two drafts received only minor support. On November 26 the Iraqi proposal was rejected. A late proposal by Pakistan, calling for Eritrean independence by January 1, 1953, with United Nations supervisory machinery during a transition period, also fell short of approval. The Ad Hoc Committee then adopted the 14-state federation plan by a vote of 38 in favor, 14 against, and 8 abstentions.

On December 2, 1950, the General Assembly, in plenary session, adopted the 14-nation federation plan by a vote of 46 in favor, 10 against, and 4 abstentions. The Assembly decisively rejected both the Soviet and Polish proposals for independence which had previously been defeated in the Ad Hoc Committee. At the same time the Assembly appointed a committee to nominate one or more candidates for the post of United Nations commissioner for Eritrea. On December 14 Eduardo Anze Matienzo of Bolivia was elected to this post by the General Assembly.

With this decision on the disposition of Eritrea, a problem which had required consideration during three successive sessions of the General Assembly, the Assembly at last was able to discharge the responsibility which it had assumed in September 1948 to determine the disposition of the three territories of Libya, Eritrea, and former Italian Somaliland. This achievement, though overshadowed in the fall of 1950 by the North Korean aggression, is of major importance as an illustration of the capacity of the General Assembly to find solutions to a complex territorial problem which it had not been possible to settle within the framework of great-power negotiation.1

'Developments concerning the territory of former Italian Somaliland are described in Part III.

PROCEDURE FOR DELIMITING BOUNDARIES

In accordance with the General Assembly resolution of November 21, 1949, the Interim Committee examined the question of those boundaries of the former Italian colonies not already fixed by international agreement and the related question of methods for delimiting such boundaries. The Interim Committee was unable to present a definitive plan to the General Assembly. However, a draft resolution on this subject, presented by the United States, was appended to the Interim Committee report to the General Assembly in September 1950. With some modification this draft was introduced in the Ad Hoc Folitical Committee. The proposal provided for bilateral negotiations on the subject between France and the Libyan Government with respect to undetermined portions of Libya's boundary with adjoining French territory, between the United Kingdom and Italy with respect to the boundary between British Somaliland and the trust territory of Somaliland, and between Ethiopia and Italy with respect to the boundary between Ethiopia and the trust territory of Somaliland. At the request of either party to such bilateral negotiations a United Nations mediator, appointed by the Secretary-General, would endeavor to assist the parties to reach agreement. If such methods failed to achieve settlement, an arbitration procedure would be followed. Similar procedures of negotiation or arbitration were recommended for cases which might be raised in respect of other unsettled boundaries of the former Italian colonies. This proposal was approved by the Assembly on December 15, 1950, by 44 votes to 5 (Soviet group), with no abstentions.

5. Kashmir Question

While India and Pakistan achieved full independence and dominion status in August 1947, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was one of more than 500 princely states whose status was left undetermined. These princely states had the choice, under the Indian Independence Act, of joining either India or Pakistan. In most instances the option was exercised without difficulty on the basis of geographical proximity to the dominion of choice as well as preponderance of Hindu or Moslem population. Kashmir, contiguous to both Pakistan and India, with a mixed though largely Moslem people, became an object of contention and the scene of armed struggle almost immediately

after partition of the subcontinent. In January 1948 the dispute was brought before the Security Council, India and Pakistan filing charges and countercharges.

In January 1948 the Security Council established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP). The Commission, after months of negotiations, was successful in obtaining agreement to a cease-fire, effective January 1, 1949, and also to the principles under which a truce and plebiscite could be brought about. Since the demarcation of a cease-fire line in July 1949, there have been very few violations. UNCIP was unsuccessful in its efforts to bring about a truce agreement and to proceed to the major objective, the holding of a plebiscite to determine the accession of the state. On December 17, 1949, the Commission reported its failure to the Security Council and suggested appointment of a single person to represent the Security Council in consulting with the two parties. The Council at once appointed its president, Gen. A. G. L. McNaughton of Canada, to carry on consultations with both parties to help them find a mutually satisfactory basis for dealing with the Kashmir problem.

Throughout 1950 the Security Council continued its efforts to help the parties reach an amicable solution of the dispute, exploring in detail various possibilities for settlement.

General McNaughton reported to the Security Council on February 3, 1950, that he had not been successful in his consultations; that the Pakistan Government had accepted his proposals in substance, but that the Government of India did not agree on the important issues of the withdrawal of troops, the disposal of both the rebel Azad forces and the Kashmir state militia, and the administration of the northern areas of the state which were under Pakistani control but over which India desired to extend its administration.

On February 25 Cuba, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States introduced a resolution which called on the Governments of India and Pakistan to prepare and execute within 5 months a demilitarization program and proposed that a United Nations representative should be appointed to take the place of the United Nations Commission and should offer the parties his services both regarding the demilitarization program and in making any suggestions which might contribute to solving the Kashmir dispute. The sponsors of the resolution explained that the U.N. representative would be expected to make suggestions compatible with the agreed goal of a free and impartial general plebiscite, unless his investigation revealed that this

'Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, and the United States were the members.

objective was impracticable. The Security Council adopted the resolution on March 14, 1950, and on April 12 appointed Sir Owen Dixon of Australia as the U.N. representative.

Sir Owen proceeded to the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent, arriving on May 27. For the next 2 months he talked separately to Indian and Pakistani officials; traveled extensively in the Kashmir area to see the disputed territory at first hand; and observed the military forces on both sides of the cease-fire line. On July 20 he began discussions in New Delhi with the Prime Ministers of both countries.

This meeting proceeded continuously until July 24. In accordance with his terms of reference Sir Owen first presented various proposals regarding the measures necessary to make possible a state-wide plebiscite to determine the future of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. His proposals both for demilitarization and for administration of the various areas of the state preparatory to and during the plebiscite were rejected by Prime Minister Nehru of India; in general they were acceptable to Prime Minister Liaquat of Pakistan. The U.N. representative's proposals assumed that during the period of the plebiscite the state would be divided by the cease-fire line as a political boundary; they also included plans for bringing into existence for the plebiscite period a single government for the whole area of the state.

Having been unsuccessful in obtaining Indian agreement to conditions which, in his opinion, would assure a fair and impartial statewide plebiscite, the U.N. representative then ascertained the two Prime Ministers' reactions to alternative plans for (a) a plebiscite by sections or areas and the allocation to India or Pakistan of each section or area according to the result of the vote therein; (b) a plan for partition of areas certain to vote for accession to either country and a plebiscite for the uncertain area of the Valley of Kashmir and some adjacent territory. While India appeared interested in these suggestions, Pakistan protested that they contravened India's commitment to determine the future of the state as a whole by a single plebiscite in the entire state. Consequently the conference adjourned.

However, in August Sir Owen continued his negotiations regarding the possibility of a settlement of the Kashmir dispute differing from that of a state-wide plebiscite. He persuaded the Government of Pakistan to agree to discuss possible alternative settlements without abandoning its adherence to the principle of a state-wide plebiscite, provided that the Government of India would agree to accept a plan to be drafted by the U.N. representative containing conditions for a fair and impartial plebiscite in the general area of the Vale of Kashmir. On August 16 Prime Minister Nehru refused categorically to accept the plan, and after a final attempt at New Delhi to persuade

India to accept his conditions Sir Owen departed on August 23, both Prime Ministers having agreed there was nothing further he could do in the subcontinent under his terms of reference. On September 15 he filed his report with the Security Council, explaining in detail his negotiations and the failure of his mission.

The conclusions of the report were as follows: (1) Unless India would agree to the details necessary to put into effect a fair and impartial state-wide plebiscite, there was no hope of bringing about such a general plebiscite; (2) a state-wide plebiscite was not desirable because it would precipitate a vast refugee movement of the Hindu or Moslem element losing the plebiscite; (3) the only possible hope for settling the dispute was partition plus some means of allocating the Valley of Kashmir; (4) the parties should assume the initiative in effecting a settlement, instead of placing this burden upon the Security Council or its representatives.

Since receiving this report the Security Council has not met to consider the Kashmir dispute. On October 27, 1950, the All-Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, in the Indian-controlled area of the state, adopted a resolution proposing the convening of a constituent assembly to determine the future form of government of the entire state and its affiliations. The Pakistani Foreign Minister on December 14, by a letter to the president of the Security Council, called attention to this act and to a press report that Prime Minister Nehru of India had welcomed this move and had said that the constituent assembly would ratify the accession of Kashmir to India. The Government of Pakistan declared this move sought to nullify the international agreement by both parties to settle the future of the state by a free and impartial plebiscite, embodied in the UNCIP resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, and was a challenge to the authority of the Security Council. Consequently Pakistan requested that the Council give urgent consideration to the Kashmir question, take measures to implement the parties' commitments, and call upon India to refrain from proceeding with the constituent assembly or from taking any other action prejudicial to the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite to determine whether Kashmir should accede to India or to Pakistan. No meeting of the Security Council on this subject had been held by the close of the year.

6. Indonesia

The year under review marked the first year of existence of the independent and sovereign Indonesian Republic. On September 28,