S/PV.260 Security Council

1 tbink it is qw.te obvious from the context that the second paragraph refers to the two parties who are engaged in the controversy; it co:uld not be otherwise. Mr. EL-KHoURI (Syria): Refore adjourning, l think it is necessary to refer to the statement made by the representative of the NetherIands with regard to the·questions which were submitted. today by the representative of China and by me as to the constitution of thé West Java Conference and its competence. ae said that in my absence at the 256th meeting, he had given a full explanation with respect to these questions. On reviewing bis statement at that meeting, 1 find that there is nothing in it which applies to the questions we submitted. Therefore, we expect that he will, in the .near future, .jJÏ.ve the Security Council. full information regarding the qu~stions we have submitted. Mr. L6PEz (Colombia): ln view ofthe statement of the representative of the Netherlands, 1 think it i3. necessary to have it clear1:r understcod whether,if there is another State set upin West Java before the nex! meeting of the Security CouDcil on this subject, which May take place in about a week or so, tbis proposaI that we have adopted today applies to West Java. Once a new State i5 carved out of Indonesia, according to the statement that we have just heard, everytbing we have done isruled out. . The PREsIDENT: Speaking as the Presidentofthe SecurityCouncil, 1think 1 cau give the representa.. tive of Colombia the assurance in the name of the Security Council thatno such situation will arise. The meeting rose at 2.45 p.m. TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTIEm MEETING Argentine, Held at Lake ·Succeas, New York, on Tuesday, 2 March 1948, at 2.30p.m. President: Mr. T. F. TSIANG (China). Present: .The representatives of the following countries: Argentina; Belgium, Canada, China, 1. Adoption of the aeenda. 2. The Paleetine question: (c;) First monthlyprogress repOl~t to the Seeurity Council of the United Nations Palestine Commission (document S/663). (b) First special report to the Seeurity Council: the problem of seeurity in Palestine; submitted by the United Nations PalestineConnnission (document S/676). 55. Adoption· of the agenda 56. Continuation of the discussioli of the Palestine question 011 the invitation of the President, Mr. Lisicky, ChairmillJ oi.the United Nations Palestine Com- mission; Mahmoud Fawzi Bey, the representative of. Egypt~· and Rabbi Abba Billel Silver, the representative of the JewishAgenc:; for Palestine, tfJOktheir placesat the Council table. Mr. BL-KnOURI (Syria): ln the opinion of my delegation the· maft resolution on the Palestinian question submitted by the representative of the United States at the 255th.me~ting and distributed in document S/685is notin harmony with the çapacity of the Security Council or with the fondamental principles and purposes of the Charter for..the foUowi.ng reasons. . Therèpi'esentative ofthe United statesproposes, iD. paragraph 1· of· hie draft resolution, that the Security Couneil, subjeet to its authority under the Charter, should aceept therequestaddressed to it by the General Assembly in paragraphs (a), (h) and (c) of section A of General Assembly reso1ution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947. 1 believe that before accepting these three requests, it. is our duty to ascertainwhether they are or are not within the framework of·the Seeurity .Council as limitedby the Charter..If it is found that they are not, we should deeline to accept them. Our fonctions are well known to us. The three l~UestS are before us,. and before accepting tht.\M we are, presumably, required to examin.e the~ with a view to deciding how they app1y to our functions. If we failed to do that we should he prejudging the case and committing 0.urse1ves to the wrong procedure. So long as tbis examination is to he made, the question arises by whom it is to be made. Is it to he left to the propose<! committee of the five permanent members of the Seeurity Counci1? Acceptance .is· supposed to be by the Security Council as a whole, and not by.:five ofits members only. Durin.~ our 258thmeeting' the represelttative of Belgium made a brier analysis of ~hese three requests and came ta the conclusion that, for the ti:m.e being, they shôuld he -deletedfrom the United States proposaI. Hesubmitted anamend- ment [document8/688}tethateffect andl explained The other fact is tJ1e incapacity of the Sccurlty Couneil to undertake by force tne implementaêon of political recomm.~~dations.,Mr. Austin recog- nized this fact himself when he said at the 253rd meeting that <1 The Charter ofthe United Nations does not empower the Se-:urity Council to enforœ a political settlement whether it is pursuant to a recommendation of,the General Assembly or of the, Security Couneil itself." It would follow from t!lis undeniable faet that any recommendation on a political settlement can be implemented only if the parties concemed willingly accept and complement it. Such a positinn is far from heing expected in the case of Palestine. Under these circumstances,no measures what" evel can be, tllken by the Security Council in compliance 'with the' ,fust of. the three requests addressed to 'the Security Coanci1in the General Assembly resolution; thereforethis proposed acceptance of the request cannot be justified. ' The second reque5t, set'forth in paragraph (b) j)fsection A of the General Assembly resolution of 29 November, asks the Secùrity, Council to consider whether the situation in Palestine, dUJing the transitional period, constitutes a threat to peace. This request is rather vague. We cannot accept it in tms form. W~ know very weIl-and we'Nere warned by many weIl informed delegations :in the Generai Assembly-that the partition plan itself constitutes athreat to thGpeaœ, being ~penly rejected by an those at whose expense It was to beexecuted., " " It is obvious >th~f the terro " peace'" in this paràgraph means international PQace 'and' not public order in the tetritory con~med.If is >also tO,benoted that the' Arabs of Palestine, beinlJ the !awful...:wners of that territ6ry,èonsider that the Intrusion in tb.Gir midst of foreign elements, authorized to appropriate by force60per cenf'of their land, and, to. dominate a very large portion of the Arabpopulation~ is ,"a flagrantaggression a~ainst the rights of those Arabs.It is. anaggres- SIon which has no '> justification in any ,law or by anyprincipleof justicè. The, Arabs considèrthat tbey·havethe' fuU'right and 'obligation ,to. resort ~f the General Assembly onIy to peaceful settle- ment of any situation· as outlined in Chapter VI of the Ch!llter. The GeneraI Aesembly acted excessively. in the exercise of its. power when it recommended the application of Article 39 in this paragraph, and ofArticle 41 in anoth~rparagraph of its resolution. Both Articles, together ",ith the phrase used, a:'e assigned exclusively to the Security Council in Chapter VII of the Charter, to be applied by the Security Couneil at its own discretion. This Chapteris described byits heading as " Action with respect to threat~' to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression:' According to Articles 39 through51, the General Assembly is acting outside its authority when it recommends the application of its provisions in one way or another. Therefore the proposaI of the representative of the United State~ to accept this request is likewise definitely out of order. 'TheSècurity Couneil knows what acts are to be determined as threats to peace or breaches of peace· or acts of aggression under Article 39. It cannot accept such a request as that of the GeneraI Assembly, specifying that a particular situation he thus determined. The main objective in this request, as framed by the authors of the partition plan, is the desire to obtain the free, unopposed implementation of· the pian and to suppress any opposition to it by force by the Arabs. It is aIso to level off the road before the execution of a political, aggressive settlement. The authors of the resolution intend to use the capacity. of the Security Couneil tohold atbay the rightful owner of the property~andto prevént the Arabs ftollL defending their·land,so that t!te aggressor may continue to rob the country and appropriate what he covets. ft is quite obvious that (orcing the Arabs. to lie down and to offer no _opposition means onIy implementing the partition by force. The peace in PaIestine,as desired by the United States proposa!, and the implementation of the partition plan are linked together as one action. It is quite clear that the·only way to implement partitio~ Uni l'Organisation responsabilités il sation aucun relatives le territoires. dat, ennemis ce administration, m bléegénérale Elle ne son qu'etle-même de cinq ni In the resolution of 29 Novel11ber, the General Assel,11bly did not adopt this process. Conse- quently, it did not secure any basis to jU&tify its intervention and its delegation to acom.mission offive Members ofan authûrity which the General Assembly itself does not p~ssess.Likewise, it lacks authority and justification for requesting the Security Council to render assistance in impIe- menting an illegal settlement. Palestine is the property of its inhabitants, who have been in free possession of that country for Many· centuries, sinee long before the time of the' Philistines of.the Bible ·and·up to the present lime of the Palestinians, who· are' the same people• Neither Lord Balfour, in hisdeclatation of 2 November 1917, northe thirty-three delegations which voted for the General Assembly resolution of 29- November 1947, have anyright to bestow that.country, or anypart ofit, on fQreign groups ofalien immigrantsforcibly·introduced there. Nor are the people of Palestine serfs of a feudal.lord to be transferred from one vassal ta _another, together with the land which they cultivate. They are free people entitled to live freelyand to defend their sacred rights with all the means at their disposaI. . prê~r règlement sont ·librementpossesseurs·depms siècles, des Palestiniens dants déclaration trois résolution br~ pays, d'immigrants Les -à que autre Ils de avec tous les permettre fa3re par s'offrent leurs alliés,. après tentative inique essaient recourir tatent de passer dans la Les ·.No.power inthe world has the right to steri!ize by force the potentialities and activities of the people .of' Palestin.e in order to enable .alien inv!tders to 'materialize their criminai greéd. The Zionists and their supporters, hliving' lost the fust round to irnplement their iniquitous scheme by using an international force, are now trying, in a. roundabout way, to' use another approach. When they find the front door closed, th~y!-IY to open theba(.k door--and Jesus Christ saId lnthe Gospel that thdse who do not enter by the front door are robbers and· thieves.The Zionists are now asking the Security Council to secure peace in .Palestine and, under.the shadow of l?eace, to carry out their atrocious plot. They The composition ofthe committee, which would comprise, as proposed by the United States delegation, the five permanent members of the Security Council, has no justification at this pr~1iminary stage of· discussion. The Security Council as a whole is supposed to study aU situa- tions aad disputes, and to determine whether they constitute a threat to international peace and security. It is not the function of the permanent members alone to do so. It is patently unfair to adopt proceedings whkt May lead the five great Powers to bring their weight to bear on the other members of the Security Council. Furthermore, the Security COUDcil is not in a position to undertake the matter of the ÎTtlplemeli.- tation of the partition scheme. The consultations suggested in sub-paragraph 2 (c) of the United States draft resolution, as limited to the impie- mentation of the Gener~'1 Assembly recommenda- tion of 29 November, 81'6 not in compliance with the functions of the Security Council, which at'e limited to international peace and security, and do not include th~ implementation of a political settlement. The appeal to the people of Palestine " to take an action possible to prevent or reduce such disorders as are now occurring in Palestine" can have no eirect as long as the cause of the trouble still stands. The attitude of the Arabs of Palestine has become very clear regarding the partition scheme. They consider it detrimental to their very existence, and it is not imaginable that they would accept consultation on the basis of the implementation of that scheme, although they May be ready, if that scheme is abandoued, to participate in and to contribute helpfully to consultations and to the re-establishment of order in Palestine. These consultations, however, must aim at finding another plan on the basis ofjustice, equity and workability for a unified future govem- ment of Palestine, guaranteeing to aU sections of the population due re3pect for their legitimate aspirations. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): The j:lending business is the Belgian amendment [document 8/688] to the draft resolution on the Palestine question submitted by the United States, which is set forth in document 8/685. The representative of Belgium, in speaking upon bis amendment [258thmeeting], said, among other things, the followillg. "... 1 have submitted an amendment to the United States draft resolution. My amendment would eliminate any Flovisions which amount to a verdict on the substance ofthe matter," that is, partition. "Thus amended, the draft resolution would remain within the present phase of our work; namely, the phase of investigation and of exploration. The committoo offlye ""Vould thus have a, completely free band. It would nevertheless have The representative of Belgium then stated: " My amendment has but one: aim: to avoid the Council's making any pronouncement at the present stage while it stilllacks sufficient informa- tion. It dues not in any way prejudge the decision the Council will take at the appropriate time. But the Security Council willnotheina positionto take any sound decision until the committee expresses its views on the results of its investigation." 1 have come to the understarding that Belgium is opposed to paragraph 1 of the United States draft resolution for the time being. It is understood to be opposed. only because Belgium considers that the moment has not yet come to take a posi- tion on it, as the proposed committee of the five permanent members of the Security Council has not yet submitted its reports following its contacts with the parties. Notwithstanding this position, the United States cannot support the Belgian amendment. The substantive issue is on the adoption or post- ponement of paragraph 1 of the draft resolution submitted by the United States, which reads: " Resolves: " 1. To accept, subject to the authority of the Secu.rity Council under the Charter, the requests addrel>.:'ed by the General Assembly to it in para- graphs (a), (b) and (c) of section A of the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947." Paragraph 2 implements paragraph 1. A vote for paragraph 1 would be a vote for partition as a solution of the Palestine question. The General Assembly voted for partition as a solution of the Palestine question. The United- States voted for that solution, and still supports it. As we have stated before, the United States supports the General Assembly plan of partition as the framework of implementation by·pacifie means. Paragraph 1, which is under consideration, and which contains the reservation .. subject to the authority of the Security Council under the Charter", expresses a Charter princip~e which is implied-we say it must be implied-in every part of the General Assembly resolution. This para- graph1in our draft resolution, therefore, intèrprets the acceptailce of the General Assembly requests in the following manner-and 1 intend to take each point up seriatim and gîve our interpretation of the effect which adoption of this paragraph 1 wouldhave: Request (a) of th~ General Assembly resolution is that " The Security Council take the necessary measures as pro\tided for in the plan for its implementation ". This is accepted, subjectto the limitation that armed force cannot be used for implementation of the plan, because the Charter limits the use of United Nations force expressly to threats to and breaches of the peace and aggression affecting international peace. There- fore, we must interpret the General Assembly res()lution as meaning tliat the United Nations measures to implement this resolution are peaceful measures. Paragraph 1 of the United States draft resolu- tion, with the qualifying clause cc subject to the authorit~ of the Security Couneil under the Chaxter", does not authorize use of enforcement under Articles 39 and 41 ofthe Charterto empower the United Nations Commission to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by the resolution, because the Charter does not authorize elther the General Assembly or the Security Council to do any such thing. On the other hand,.the passage of paragraph 1 of our draft resolution accepts request (b) of the General Assembly resolution with the clear interpretation that is made by this reservation in paragraph 1: (t subject to the authority of the Security Couneil under the Charter," . Thus, the duty which is accepted, if we adopt paragraph 1 of tbis resolution, is to coünider under request (b) whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. Acceptance ofit requires consideration of whether such. a threat exïsts. This is an obligation that exists without the General A&sl.:'".nbly resolution, because the Charter requkes it. This paragraph 1 in the draft resolution int'er- prets request (c) of the General Assembly resolu- tion as follows: Under Article 39 the.Securïty Couneil is under a mandate to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or aet of aggression.. II: may regard attempts to. alter by force the sett1ement envisaged by tbis resolution as constitntiug such a threat. The obligation mIlSt he can:ied (,;ut by the process of det:er:!JlîIm.tion, and not sûleiy at the request of the General Assembly. . _ . As. we have stated. before [2S3rd meeting], the special report of the Palestine Çommission If the Security Couneil find-S that there is a threat to international peace, it may, of course, empvwer the United Nations Palestine Commis- sion to assist the Security Council in maintain.ing peace. Ifthe Security CC1Jneil should find that a threat to internationai peace or breach of the peace exists, it is empowered to make recommeùdations, or to take provisional measures under Article 40, or to impose econc,mic and oth~r non-military sanctions under Article 41, or to take military measures under Article 41. The Security Council would he required to follow one or more of these lines of action. It might pursue these lines of action in any sequence deemed proper. Note the llœguage of request (c). It states that the General Assembly requests that " l'he Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peaœ. or act of aggression. in aceordance with Article 39 ofthe Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resoIu- tian." One cannot drop a word from that and still retain the same meaning. The language of request (c) had a current con- struction by my Govemment at the time of acceptance ofit by my Government in the Ad Hoc Commlttee on the Palestinian Question. It excluded the hypothesis that if an attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by the resolution should occur, the Security Council must determine that it constitutes a threat to the peace. That practical carrent construction was made in the following language by Mr. Herschel V. Johnson, who was then repl'esenting the United States in· the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, from the record of which I take the fonowing quotation1 : n'aurait amendem0nt Nous version demande une au contre présenterait. ment même, surveillance déterminer contre .. projet des pouvoirs que sécurité États-Unis a demande exige est tion pitre'VIT. projet de Conseil de sécurité fera voir, recoD)J!·,andation "My delegation, 1 must say quite frankly. would not have been able to support the original amendment put up by the delegation of Denmark. We are prepared, however, to accept thisrevised version. The revised version does .not ask thé Security Councll to act upon a hypothetical situam tion, but requests that it act in the event that a situation whic;h constitutes a threat to inter- national peace and security should arise. This, at oost, can only be an admonition to the Security Council. The Security Council by its own constitu- tion has the duty to exercise surveill8nce over such situations, and to determine when a threat to international peace and security exists." The reservation « subject to the authority of the Security Council under the Charter," in para- graph 1 of our draft resolution, rests upon the principle upon which the United States stood, as stated by Mr. Johnson. As we see it, interpreted in this manner, the acceptance of req~est (c) requires determination of the question of fact of threat to international.peace and, if such threat is found, action under Chapter VIT. Taken altogether, paragraph 1 of the United States draft r~solution means that the Security Çou~cil will do everything it can under the Charter ta glve· effect to the recommendation of the General Assembly. 1 TIie quotation is from the statement made at the 34th.meeting, for .the summary record of which see faite lors 0ffü:ral Rec()rds of the second session of the General As- figure sembly, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question. 1l'Assemblée . . question The two reports of the Palestine Commission have described the formidable tasks confronting it, and their vicws have been emphssized in the debate in the Security Council. Their :6rm conclu.. sion is that implementation of the General Assembly's recommcndation depends on the creation of a non..Palestinian security force to protect the Commission and to enable it to carry through the partition plan. The representative of the United States has proposed that the Security Council should pro.. c1aim its acceptance of the plan recommended by the General Assembly, but that the,Security Council should recognize that, while able to give advïce and guidance to the Palestine Commission, it cannot impose the partition plan by force. At the same time, he declares, it is the: Security Counci1's duty to consider the situation in Palestine in order to detennine whether a threat to the peace eXists, 'and to take appropriate action. The Belgian amendment, on the other hand, seeks to eliminate 'mention of acceptance of the plan at this stage, "but follows the' United States draft resolutioil in its proposal that a committee composèd of tlle ,permanent members of the Security Couneil should consult and report. , For reasons which have often been stated, .I do, not propose to express on behalf of the "United Kingdom any opinion on the adequacy ,of these proposais. Nevertheless, 1 feel bound once more to emphasize th~ increasing gravity of the situation in Palestine. l' must point out that, whatever procedure the United Nations may decide to adtipt with a view to assuming responsibility for the govemment of Palestine on 15 May, that country is likely to become disorganized, disintegrated and even more violent.. ly disrupted b;y that date. In addition, the peace and security of lerusalem after 15 May is exciting the anxious interest of people thr,~ughout the world. We have been reminded in fon;eful t~rms :>f the urgency of the matter by the Chairman of the Palestine Commission [253rd meeting]. Another, aspect of which 1 feel it my dutY to wam the Security Coùnci1 is tbat the danger to securltyin lerusalem proceeds in no small part .from the ever present rivaIry ofturbulent Christian ,sects and that, owing to the incidence of religious festiva1s~ this danger' will,reach its peak during the months of April and May. It is necessary for me to repeat this because of the statements spread about which accuse my Government of making the transfer as difficult as possible, and of denying assistance to the United Nations. It has even been suggested that we have preferred to undo all our work ofthe past twenty- five years in order to reduce the administration to chaos and see disorder reign in Palestine. On the contrary, we have taken aIl the practica1 steps in our power to prevent disorder overtaking Palestine and the authority of the United Nations being made abortive when Unit.ed Kingdom administration ends on 15 May. Our fervent hope is tbat the Security Cauneil will now find a way to secure effective assumption of authority in Palestine by the United Nations when the Mandate is terminated. The distinguished Chaiiman of the Palestine Commission, in his speech to the Security Council [253rd meeting], has drawn attention to certain aspects ofthe problem which the Security Council, 1 am sure, will not wish to ignore. Even under the most favourable conditions, the General Assembly's· resolution of 29 November is no adequate or satisfactory charter for enabling the Palestine Commission to carry out its task. Whatever MaY be the merits or .demerits of the .General Assembly's recommendations, their workability essentiallydepends upon somemeasure of co-operation between Jews and Arabs. This co-operation, on which the maintenance of the essential services and normal me of the country depends, cannot be secured by coercion, ~ssentieis être . l'extérieur pour ne communautés, pays indéfinie. observations plan origine lesquellee tion que certains devenus ne ârabes mêmes générale quant ditions nementa accepté le plan et renoncé égard.un Any forces sent into Palestine from outside to impose any plan not acceptable to one or other community would have to be kept there for a long and indefinite period. It is not for me to comment on certain ohvious defects in the partition plan, sorne of whf.ch arose from its being concêived in conditions of !;trong partiality. In the steady deterioration of the siro.ation in Palestine, as the Chairman of th~ Palestine Commission helS pointed out, some of its impractical features have become increasingly appsrent. The plan makes far too little allowance either for Arab reactions or for the immense difficulties which the term~ ~f the General Assembly's resolution themselves Impose on the Mandatory Power in transferring authori(ty under such ,üsturbed conditions. Never- thele~s, 'my Governmentllas accepted the plan, has declined to paas judgment on .it, and, for rea!lons which have been repeatedly emphasized, has advocated no alternative solution of its own, trusting that the. collective wisdom and fait- mindedness of the United Nations would find 1 do not propose to employ the time of the SecUrity Council by a detailed reply to the charges made againstthe Mandatory Power by the representative ofthe Jewish Agency. 1 would refer memhers of the Security Council to the statement issued by the GovemmentofPalestine on 1March, in which the equivocal policy ofthe Jewish Agency is exposed. 'There are, however, one or two mis"statements in the speech of the Jewish Agency representative which 1·feel 1 must correct. In his endeavour to represent the curientactivities of Jewish organiza- tions in Palestine as "self-defence", the Jewish Agency representative contended [258th meeting] that itwas only after Arab provocation and fàilure by the security forces to· enforc.:e law and order impartially that "... isolated acts ofindiscri- minate bloodshed on the part of dissident Jewish groups occurred!' Memhers of the Security Council will hardly need to he reminded that these outrages by the Jewish terrorist organizations, so' politely now described as" dissident groups", havebeen going on for 'years. The Jewish community has made negligible efforts to prevent -these outrages 0t: to roo", •out the organizations responsible for them. 1 will not horrify the Security Couneil with a list of the attocities committed by Jewish terrorists in ,recent years against defenceless men and women and against the United Kingdom's civil and militarypersonnel. Theevents ofthe last week have starkly'revea1ed the irresponsible. wickedness ofthese organizations~Whataction hasthe Jewish Agency, so strong before this Security Council in the role·of supporter of impartial justice, taken tocheck theseruthless murders which have so greatlyharmed the Jewish cause the world over? The Agency has, 1 fear, consistently subordinated moral considerations. to political expediency. Itsspokesmen havecertainly made expressions ofdisapproval and regret, but they have supported them by little positive.actïon. Inattempting·to 'exptain .and justify terroristactivities as the But, as 1have said, the great part ofthe Agency's contribution to the Security Council's debate is irrelevant. The question at issue is not British partiality, Arab intransigeance or Jewish ter- rorism; it is the problem wbich the Chairman of the Palestine Commission has put before, us: the practical steps which are to be taken to meet the situation which has develbped in Palestine. In particular, my Government recognizes that it isimportant that the Security Council should carefully examine whether a threat to the peace exists. In our judgment this is not a task ônly for the permanent members of the Security Couneil; other members of the Security Council should share it. ' We endorse the appea1 in the las! paragraphs of the United States and Belgian proposaIs that an the Powers and peoples involved in Palestine should lend their influence to prevent further violence. derni~rs des sances en empêcher vaut demandent semhlée générale. si Nations les prêter conseils à concerne générale. Je dois répéter une fois ne en envers Palestine est que de accepter que créer. Mais bien que mon Gouvernement ne puisse Yùter lution, l'on tous qu'il visant à jeter au-dessus deux répéter. aucun engagement tine. pendant ponsabilités irrévocable. listes nerai sur la question des consultations qui a été soulevée par principe, pour que les cinq membrespermatients de sécurité procèdent à des consultationsmutuêlles With the operative clause of the resolutions before us, however, we have some difficulty. The United States asks us to endorse the·plan: adopted by the General Assembly. For the reasons which we have so often explained to the United Nations, we cannot do this. Further, both the United States and Belgium ask us to assist in .giving instructions and guidance to the Palestine Com- mission regarding the implementation of the General Assembly's plan. 1 must again repeat that we cafinot participate in any way in the imple- mentation of a plan which involves the coercioti of one of the communities-:-and in Palestine, that is, the larger community-or tJ1e assumption of further commitments in Palestine by the United Kingdom Government. 'For this reason, my Govemment cannot agree to take part in the committee which the two draft resolutions propose to set up. But, althougà my Government cannot, therefore, vote for either draft resolution, it will assist any committee which may be appointed with aIl.the information and experience at its disposaI. Furthermore, we shall welcome any effort to find a bridge,.even at this late hour, across the gulf which now separates the two communities in Palestine. Finally,J must repeat that the United Kingdom cannot enter into any new or extended commitment in regard to Palestine. Our contribution has aIready been made <>ver the years and the date of termination of our responsibility is irrevocably fixed. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of· Soviet Socialist Republics) (translate,d Irom Russian): 1 shall confine myself, for the time being, to a brief state- !1lent on the' question of consultations raised In the United States draft resolution. In principle~ the. USSR.delegation agrees that the fi've Powers which .are permanentmembersof the Security Counctl should consult together on questions ..'lndeed, if any .great Power has· definite views on !h.e Palestine question as a whole and, .in particular, on the questions raised by the Palestine Comniission's reports, we have no reason· to believe that ·such a Power cân state those views only in committee. It can stateits positiOll just as eff~tivelyoutside a committee, in direct conversa- tionswith the other peI1tJ.anent members of the Securîty Council. None oftht( great Powers should bide behind a committée, since this could only complicate and'delay the settlement of the ques- tions on tae agenda in connexion with thç present situation in Palestine. The situation, however, is such that any delay in the consideration of these questions is unjustifiable. It is obvious that the United States proposaI to consult with the Palestine Commission and with the Jews and the Arabs through theproposed committee is a far-fetchedidea and quite unjusti- :fi.able~Weknow that the Palestine Commission is engaged in consulting the Jews and the Arabs, and there is therdore no need to establish an additional and parallel chânnel of consultation with them. Is it that the Security Couneil is finding it .rather difficult to obtam information on the results of these consultations? No, the Council has no su:ch difficu1ties; the Commission has provided it with detailed information on this qu~tion.. . . The Security Councn has not only had no difficu1ty inobtaining ftom the Palestine Commis- sion information on the results ofits consultations with the .Tews and the Arabs; but it has also kept itself informed of the. views' of the Commission on allthe mostimportantquestions relatingto thè implementation ofthe United Nations decision on the partition ofPalegtine. The Commission has given the SêcurityCouncil, in its reports, its own conclusions and deductions. Furthermoremembers of' the Commission are seated with us atthe Couneiltable., and are prepared af any time to reply here in public to any que$tions referred to thé .Commissiont and" to sqpply appropriate expIanations. The Chairman of the Commission, Mr.Lisicky, has already reported to us onbehalf of the Commission. If.any representative on.. the Security Council, or· theSecurity Councilas. a whole,wishesto consult the Commission again, they may do so immediately, at this. m~eting. _ It maybe asked whatgrounds there are, then, for. raisingthe question of the need·for consulting 1would ask the United States representative as weU as other representatives on the Council to give their views on my suggestion of holding direct consultations between the five great Powers, without any committoo, bearing in mind that the proposal on consultations between the five great Powers sooms in principle to be acceptable to everyone. 1 have no objections to paragraph 1 of the United States draft resolution, which provides that the Security Council accept the requests addressed by the General Assembly to it in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section A of the GeneralAssemblyresolutionof29 November 1947. The PREsIDEl\"T: 1 have no more speakers on my list. 1 propose that we should resume our discus- orateur sion of the Palestine question tomorrow at ,.d~ 2.30 p.m. As there is no objection, we sha1l meet tomorrow at 2.30 p,m. réunirons Before the meeting fises, 1 should like to caU the attention of the members Ilf the Security l'attention Council to a letter addressed to the Secretary- -sur General ofthe United Nations by the Ambassador _ ment of Burma, dated 27 February 1948 [document Birmanie S/68'lj. It is an application for' membership. des 1-do -not propose to discuss this letter today d'admission because, it is not on our agenda. 1 suggest that des Nations Unies. we put tbis matter on our provisional agenda aujourd'hui fortomorrow.lt can he disposed ofin five minutes figure accordirig to our usual procedure. It sooms to me d'inscrire that a ma~er of this kind, an application' for Cette membership, requires sorne formal attention on minutes, our part as early as possible to show our courtesy timed'autre to the applicant. une l'Organisation Conseil, aussitôt inscrite As there is no objection, this matter will-be put on our pl'ovisional agenda for tomorrow. The mee~ing rose at 4.45 p.m.