S/PV.309 Security Council

We shall continue,the discussion which was hegun at the 3üSth meeting on the various draft lesolutions now before the Security Council. The system of si~ultaneous interpretation was introduced at this point. ' Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated·from Russian): For a long time now the United Nations in general, and the Security Council in particular, have been dis.:. r~ndent Arab State created on the basis of the .ieneral Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947.1 The Security Council has already' tried to adopt several resolutions; l refer in particul?I to the resolution of 22 May [302nd meeting]. Like several previous resolutions, it called upon the Governments and authorities involved in the struggle in Palestine to put an end to military operations. B1lt, as we know, it has remained a resolution on paper. The States whose forces have invaded Palestine, have ignored the Security Couttcil's resolutio!l. This is not the first rime that the Arab States, which organized the invasion of Palestine, have ignored a decision of the Security Council or of the General Assembly. rhe USSR delegation deems it essential that the Council should state its opinion more clearly and more firm1y with regard to this attitude of the AraQ States towards decisions of the Security Council. It is not in the interest of the United Na.tions in general, or of the Security Council in particular, to tolerate such a .situation, where decisions of the Council, designed to put an end to warfare-and the Palestine events can only be described as warfare -are being flouted. These decisions are being completely ignorecî by the Governments primarily responsible for the present situation in Palestine. It is for this reason that the USSR delegation .has submitted a draft resolution [documents 8/794/Rev. ] and 8/794/Rev. 2] which, ip. aIl its essential·features,. is similar to the proposaI previously submitted by the United States [document 8/773]. It provides that the C01,1ficil should order the States responsible for the conflict in Pa1estine; to put an end to military operations within thirty-six. hours. We consider that the adoption of this proposal would help to remedy the situation and, as l have already pointed out, restore normal conditions in· Palestine. l am aware that in addition to the USSR proposaI other proposaIs have aIso been put fqrreg~rd to thè Palestine question. The United Kingdom draft resolution, if adopted, would fail to improve the situation in Palestine, and we are firmly convinced that it would merely serve to complicate the situation and to intensify the conflict between Jews and Arabs. It would serve to increase the bloodshed in Palestine, for which the present United Kingdom Government is largely responsible. The United Kingdo~ draft resolution has many serious defects. In the first place, it is basically inconsistent with the General Assembly's decision of 29 November 1947, which provides for the creation of two independent States in Palestine-a Jewish State. s.nd an Arab State. For this reason atone, the United ÎGngdom resolution cannot be adopted by the Security Council. It must not bè adopted; it must be rejected. The adoption of this resolution would constitute an illegal act on the part of the Security Council.. It is pointed out occas,;ona1ly that some States still fail to share the view which is held by the majority of the United Nations and has been expressed in the decision to papition .Palestine inta two States. It is also pointed out that certain action by the Security Couneil is required for the implementation of the United Nations decision of 29 November 1947. ne Etats Unies, au souligne cation vemb~e prendre de résolution .doit donner le prendre de tion ment, présenterait sécurité des ell Palestine en deux Etats. Let us examine what sort of action is required of the Security r.ouncil. According to the General Assembly resolution, the Security Courrcil is ~equested to take the necessary measures for the implementation of the resolution. No one has . empowered or asked the Security CoUt'lcil to take any measures that would be contrary to the General Assembly's decision. It is precisely for this reason that any such decision, including a decision taken on the basis of the United Kingdom resolution, would be illegal. The Security COlli"1- cil has no power or right to adopt any other decisions than those aimed at implementing the decision ta partition Palestine into two States. The United Kingdom resolution provides for asuspension ofJewish immigration into Palestine. Its intention is to stop the immigration of men of military age. It provides for a suspension of the importation of war material, and presumably arms and munitions, into Pal~tine. It states that . the United Nations Mediator, who has already been appointed, may recommend a settlement of the Palestine question to the Security Council, that isto say, he may make recommendations· regarding .the future political structure of Palestine, as if nbthing had heen done about the de empêcher de faire de enfin, vient d'être nommé recommander à tinienne. dations quant tine, la You will recall, in particular, tn.at that resolution provided for the organization of Jewish immigration into Palestine in an appropriate manner, and called upon the United Nations ta take the necessary measures to that end. The United Kingdom resolution provides fOl' exactly the opposite. And the United Kingdom is rt:commending all this while giving active help, by various ways and mean~> to one of the parties involved in the conRiet in Palestine. . What does the United Kingdom GoveI'nment expect to achieve by submitting such proposaIs? Apparently, it hopes further to complicate the whole question and to create conditions that would make it as difficult as possible for the Jewish State to get on its feet. Apparently, it aIso aims at prolonging the struggle in Palestine, perhaps in arder that it may be able to come to the General Assembly in September and tell us that the resolution previously adopted by the General Assembly cannot be implemented and that we must try to find Ilome other solution. Apparently, it also aims at forcing the United Nations to reconsider ~he Palestine question and to impose various doubtful and suspicious schemes, whieh rnight correspond to the interests of sorne States, and to the, imperial interests of the United Kingdom in partieular, but would not correspond, as we know from past experience, We aIl know that the United Kingdom has perhaps more experience than any other country in setting one people against anpther, particularly in its colonial possessions. That is why many people are wondering whether present events in Palestine are not a continuation of the traditional poliey of <Cdivide and govern". Almost every meeting of the Security Council provides ample material for suppositions of that nature. It is hard ta believe that the United Kingdcxn Govemment does not realize that the adoption of its resolution would not put an end to the struggle in Palestine. It is hard to believe that the United Kingdom Government does not realize that the adoption of its resolution would lead to greater strife and slaughter betWeen Jews and Arabs. Neverthe1ess, this resolution is being submitted and defended with typical British stubbornness. This means that th\:; ,~ited Kingdom Govemment attaches great importance to its policy in the Palestine question. This compels us to be even more on our guard, for in this, as in any other question examined by the United Nations, we must be' guided not by the selfish interests of one Power, or even of a group of Powers, but by the definite principles and interests of the Unitèd Nations as a whole. The policy of the United Kingdom in this question is thoroughly hypocritical. It has been hypocritical, as we now realize, from the day the United Kingdom requested the United Nations to consider the question of Palestine. As we know, the United Nationsagreed to that request and took up the Palestine question. Throughout the, year this questionhas been under consideration by the United Nations, and the United Kingdom has played a rather clumsy game, trying at aIl cost to prevent the granting oÏ independence to the peoples of Palestine and L1.e establishment of'independent States in that country. This policy was designed to efl..8urethe continuation in Palestine of the semi-colonial regime which the British have been stubbornly imposing upon that country for a quarter of a century in the manner employed by the United Kingdom in its colonies and possessions. But it is not enough to say that the policy of th~.United Kingdom in this question is a hypo- Cfltical one. Cynicism has now been added to hypocrisy. Only thus can we describe the latest l!nited Kingdom proposal ta the Security Council on the Palestine question. The British are beginning to juggle with words in an attempt ta Take, for instance, the last paragraph of the United Kingdom draft resolutioll, which 1 have not mentioned so far. This paragraph reads as follows: "The Security Qouncil ... decides that if the present resolution is rejected by either party or by both, the present situation in Palestine will be reconsidered with a view to action under Chapter VII of the Charter:' Is it not clear what the United Kingdom is' driving at? The United Kingdom asks us to adopt a resolution which would ensure the application of sanctions against the new Jewish State, whichis the victim of aggression. The adoption of this paragraph would mean that if the provisional Government of the Jew...sh State refused to agree to that resolution-not only if it refused to implement the resolution but evenl if it refused to agree to itthe Security Council would have to apply Chapter VII {lf the Charter. Against whom? Against aState which refused to accept this illegal and unwarranted resolution. This resolution entirely frees from responsibility and protects; thos'e States which, together with .the United Kingdom, of course, are responsible for the present situation in Palestine. That is how the British have twisted the matter. Can the United Ki'1gdom paliey in· this question be described in any other way than as a policy of hypocrisy and cynicism? . Rence there are many people who have legitimate reasons to ask whether the United Kingdom is Dot interested in adding more fuel to the fire, in kindling the fightirig in Palestine, in preventing any normalization of the situation there and in continUÎilg to incite the Jews against the Arabs and the Arabs against the Jews so as to exhaust both parties. There is ever-increasing justification for askîng this question. Another important conclusion may be drawn as a re'mIt of the discussion of the Palestine question in the SecurityCouncil. The United Kingdom Government is flirtmg with the Arabs and the Arab States. This flirtation is being carried on in such a way that the interests of the Arab population in Palestine ?ore completely ignored. Besides, the United Kingdom has never cared about their interests. The possibility of grantmg independence to the Arab population of Palestine is not even mentioned. The word "independence" cannot be found in the United Kingdom vocabulary, when the Palestine question Ï3 discussed. . 1 repeat that the United Kingdom is flirting with the Arab States. This is undoubtedly a longterm poliey. It is apparently designed to win over the Arab States to the United Kingdom during the discussion of thé Pale3tin~ question and to take advantage of the discussion of that question to strengthen British positions in the Near As the USSR representatives have repeatedly ,pointed out, the Soviet Union has always viewed with sympathy the legitimate aspirations of the peoples of the Arab States in the East to rid themselves of dependence on foreign countries, and to attain full independence aIld sovereignty. Sympathy with the nationalliberation movement, sympathy with any struggle for the lJ1ational liberation of oppressed and dependent peoples, is one of the fundamental principles of the foreign policy of the USSR. This is common knowledge. This policy is a fundamental one and is not of a transitory, provisional nature. The USSR cannot ignore the evehts that are now taking place in Palestinl~. It cannot fail to point out the intolerable nature of thé adventure which is no~ being organized in Palestine with , the active support of the govcrning circ1es of several States and, naturally, of the United Kingdom in the :f1rst place-an adventtire which is being carried out by means of certain circles in the ~.-\rab States. That is· the reason why the USSR ha.;s submitt~d a resolution under whi.ch 1 the Secunty Council would order the States mr volved in the Palestine conflict to cease military operations within thirty-six hours. We consider that the Security Cauncil has every.reason and every right to take such a decision, which can- . There has been much talk about Jerusale.lll and its ancient,religious and cultural monu~ents. Impassioned speeches on that subject were made at the last session of the General Assembly by the French representatives-inc1uding our esteemed President-and representatives of other States, inc1uding those of Latin America. Eloquent speeches were made at the General Assembly and in the Security Council. But when we come to the question of accepting a proposal that would ensure a cease-fire, at least in Jerusalem, and when we discuss practical and effective proposals, these same representatives seem ta lose the gift of speech. The resulting situation is that, in spite of the struggle that is going on in Palestine in general and in Jerusalem in particular, the Security Council has becomè an utterly he1pless, utterly powerless body unable to stop the fighting and to normalize the situation, even in one city alone. What would happen if the Security Council had to .deal with more serious matters? Perhaps the sentiments of religious people have changed since the last special session of the General Assembly? Perhaps the value of the religious, cultural and historic monuments of Jerusalem has gone down in their opinion? Perhaps Christians, Jews and Moslems have adopted a different attitude towards these ancient monuments in Jerusalem? Perhaps, the American and British Protestants, the members of the Anglican. Church or the Canadian Catholics have no longer the same attitude towards these monuments as they had at the time of the session of the General Assembly, when we heard so many speeches urging the protection a:,d preservation of these monuments? Perhaps the Catholics in Argentina have changed their attitude towards these monuments? 1 doubt it. Perhaps we should appeal to the atheists of the whole world to rectify the situation in Palestine? However, the Governments of somé of the States represented on the Security Council do not want to lift a finger to preserve even the eity of Jerusalem, or to put an end to military operations, if only, in that one spot in Palestine. The Security Council is the organ entrusted wi~h the fundamental task of maintaining international peace and security. By acting in such a way~ the Security Council is certainly compromising both itself and the whole United Nations. By failing to adopt at least one effective proposal, .the St-curity Ceuneil is virtually helping the situation in Palestine to become every day more alarming, tense anddangerous. We are faced with an obvious threat to peace and The USSR delegation considers that the adoption of its draft resolution for an "order to he issued calling on the guilty States to cease military operations in Palestine would rectify the situation in that coùutry. The USSR delegation expresses its satisfaction at the support it has received from several other delegations. On the other hand it is perplexed by the stubbornness with which several States-Canada and Bclgiurn in particular, to say nothing of the United Kingdom and Syria-refuse to suppor~ ~ven the slightest effective proposal in the Security Council. Needless to say, these States, together with the United Kingdom, which organizes obstruction as saon as there is any mention of the adoption of anyl effective proposals by the Security Council, are taking upon themselves a .considerable share of the responsibility for the existing situation in Palestine, and for its possible further complication. The Govemments of these States will find it difficult to justify their poliey not only to the public opinion of the whole world but, it seems to us, even to public opinion in their own countries. You have before you a draft resolution submitted by the USSR. The USSR delegation again appeals to the Council to take this resolution as a hasis for a decision by the Council. The USSR delegation has made aslight alteration in the wording of the resolution. The Secretarîat will now distribute the amended draft· resolution [document S/794/Rev.2]. The change mainly consists in the addition of the phrase: "in view of the refusal of the Arab States to comply with this decision"? che end of the first paragraph, so that theamended paragraph reads as follows: "Considering that the Security Council's resolution of 22 May on the cessation of military operations in Palestine has not been carried out in view of the refusaI of the Arab States to comply with this decision ..." The remainder of the resolution 18 unchanged, with the exception of a few slight drafting amendments. ' l hope that the Security Council will find it possible to adopt the USSR. proposaI and thus e~sure the appropriate conditions for the restorat~on of peace, security and tranquillity in Palestme and consequently in the Ncar East as well. In the difficult situation in which the Security COll..tJ.cil finds itself-and it is a very difficult situation, as in spite of the fact that some representatives say it would be easy to clear all this up, 1 can assure you, as perhaps we have had a little more experience in this matter than sorne of the other members of the Couneil, it is not as easy as all that-in spite of that difficulty then, the United Kingdom resolution was intended ta be a contribution, and we hoped, a useful contribution, to a sQ.lution of this crisis which Inight have producedi agreement out of the conflicting views which have been expressed at this table. 1 think that sometimes we are apt to farget that a resolution was brought forward for immediate, drastic action, and that it did fail ta pass. There was disagreement in t.~e Security Council. We therefore put this resolution forward in the hope that it might afford sorne ground for compromise, and that we might get generaI agreement upon it. Our resolution was designed to bring pressure for peace and a last breathing space in which peace could 1:?e sought, without landing us imniediately into what is known as "enforcement action". What, during the last quarter of a century and more, has been going on in Palestine, if it was not_ an attempt on the part of an external authority, with force at its disposaI, to bring about an agreement between Arabs and Jews? And has that method brought us an inch nearer a solution? What is it that those who advocate immediate resort to Chapter VII intend ta do if theyare defied? Before votes are taken on·these resolutions, 1 should like to hear from _rale, 1 devoutly hope that such a threat might hold the situation for the moment. Our every effort, however, must be devoted to seeking a solution by agreement. The General Assembly has appointed a Mediator, that is to say, on the instructions of the General Assembly, a committee of the five permanent members have appointed a Mediator. We have a Truce Commission. How do they fit into the scheme of immediate enforcement action? Do let us see where we are going. Above an, do let us know what we mean. If we embark now on Chapter VU, wc start down a slope on which it would be very difficult'to stop. Is everyone who àdvocates such action prepared to go on down to the bottom, or are sorne hoping to slide over the edge on the way down? 1 could imagine nothing more disastrous to the' United Nations than if that were to happen. Have we learned ::J.othing from the haH ,Jacked and haHhearted sanctions against· Mussolini? Of course, if everyone who advocates enforcement action now will say that t4ey are prepared to go to any lengths, that might have a great deterrent effect. 1 do not believei it would get us much nearer a settlement, and if it were put into force imme- 1 could make'some comment on what the l'epresep.tative of the Jewish Agency said the other clay about the United Kingdom resolution. 1 do not want to add ta the acrimony of the debate. The exuberance of the statements on bath sides are an illustration of the difficulty of this problem. He challenged,t.1J.e accuracy of my historical account. 1 do not wish ta enter) at this stage, into a controversy with him. 1 think that the time for that is pasto 1 would oruy say that 1 withdraw nothing of what 1 then said. If he still wishes ta pursue certain points, 1 will of course be ready ta make reply, but 1 doubt whether that will bring us any nearer ta our goal. On the subject of our resolution, he attacked in particular the third and fourth paragraphs. These were not intended ta be discriminatory. They resemble very closely passages in the Security Cou..'!1cil r,esolution of 16 April, against which 1 heard no violent onslaught at that time. We did not mean by these paragraphs ta impose any one-sided disability. These paragraphS are for discussion, and, no doubt, amendments will be proposed. 1 hope that any amendments will. be discussed as dispassionately as possible. The representative of the Jewish Agency made a further attack on our seventh paragraph, dealing with the Mediator, who, he says, would thereby become a one-man tribunal. 1 confess 1 .do not follow this. 1 do nù~ quite understand what he means. 1 do not quite see in what way the Mediator's functions would be chànged by that paragraph in our draft resolution. The . representative of the Jewish Agency seemed ta basehis objection on the fact that the Mediator would be instructed ta seek an eventual settlement for Palestine. It may be tao optimistic ta hope that the Mediato;"s activities could lead ta a general and final settlement, but 1 submit t1:;J.at it is not wicked ta cherÎl;h this hope. 1 am afl'aid that the remarks of the representative of the Jewish Agency will not have made the Mediator's task any easier, or increased his prospect of success. We, in our draft resolution, have agreed to use the threat of Chapter VII ta bring pressure for peace. Do let us now seek peace with the helpif it he such-of that threat. Do not let us, here and U0W, before the effect of that threat is seen, put ùL!rselves in a position where we may lose in· fluence with one side or the other, or bath, be- . ,cause that is what it cames ta if we resort im- . . . The United Nations, if wholehearted in this matter, might hold the situation as precariously as we have done in the pasto Do the members think they can impose a solution? Do they think that by force they will bring the solution an inch nearer? Arabs and Jews must live together in peacc for their mutual benefit. They succeed in doing so elsewhere, and they have in the .past done so in Palestine in happier circumstances. This was very well said yesterday by '!;he representative of Lebanon. No setdement will be lasting, no setclement will bring peace, unJess based on a realization by each party that it needs the friend1y co-operation of the other. Mr. VAN LANGENHàVE (Belgium) (translated trom French) -: l wish ta state the Belgian delegation's position regarding the three proposals now before the Security Council. The first proposal was submitted by the USSR delegation; it takes up the substance of the original proposal made by the United States delegation and, like that proposal, contemplates the immediate application of Chapter VII of the Charter. The Belgian delegation has already defined its~ position in that connexion. l do not intend to retUrIl to the subject except to reply briefly to sorne objections. The determination of the existence of a breach of the peace' in accordance with Article 39 has no meaning unless it is connected with the' whole series of enforcemellt measures provided for in Chapter VII. As soon as that finding is reached, the Council must be prepared to apply those enforcement measures, including armed force if necessary. We have no objection to that in principle, but we doubt whether the ?pplication of such measures would be possible ~ffective in the present state of international'relations. As the representativè of Canada stated a few days aga and as the United Kingdom.representative has just said, we have the right to ask iliose who make such a proposaI where they wish ta lead us and where they wish to lead the United Nations, and what' enforeement measures they contemplate. If measures of a non-military character prove ta be inadequate the final responsibility lies with the Great Powers in accordance with Article 106 of the Charter. Do the Great Powers agree ta take together, in accordance , avec It is true that this is not the first time that the Security· Council has been seized of proposals . contemplating' the application of Chapter VII of the Charter. Nearly a year ago, two proposaIs were sJ.lbmitted ta it with the object of establishing that the situation in Greece was a threat to peace. The use of the veto by one of the permanent members of the Security Council caused each of them to be defeated. Fighting was then going on in Greece and it is still going on. The USSR delegation' and the delegation of the United States of America now agree that there has bem a breach of the peace in Palestine. But will their agreement go further than the establishment of that fact? Thatis what we do not know. Suppose the employment of enforcement measures were possible, would that solve the Palestine question? The large forces maintained in Palestine by the United Kingdom were not successful even in keeping law and arder. Only mediation can, in the long run,' bring about appeasement and prepare the way for co-operation, without which there can be no salvation for the parties çoncemed. . Such was the opinion of the overwheIming majority of the United Nations who adopted the General Assembly resolution of 14 May last.2 The Belgian delegation still supports that point of view. A truce is essential if such mediation is to take place; that is what the United Kingdom proposal seeks ta achieve. But such a truce should be 'of adequate dur.ation; four weeks is a very short time. 1 think it is the bare minimum and 1 hope it canl be extended. That truce must be' equitable ta both parties. During suc.h a truce the status quo must be mainta.ined and none of the beIligerents should be able ta alter the situation ta the detriment of bis enemies. That was the spirit of t~e resolution [document 8/723] unanimouslyadopted by this Council on 16 April. That resolution has not been revoked butmust now be adapted to present circumstances. It is in that spirit that the Belgian delegation supports the principle of the United Kingdoln proposal. The French delegation'sproposal [docUfl lents 8/798/Rèv. 1 and S/798/Rev. 2] has a more limited and immediate abject, but it is covered, . ta a great extent, by the United Kingdom pro- . posal. '\J\le sympathize with the anxiety which inspired it-we share that amdety. We shaII

1 think it will be necessary to hold a second meeting this afternoon. It will be held at 2.30 p.m. If the representative of Syria would rather wait until then to speak, 1 shalI adjoum the present meeting. The representatives of Argentina and of the Lebanon have asked to speak on the question of procedure. 1 calI on the representative of Argentina. Mr. ARCE (Argentina) (translated trom Spanish): Yesterday evening we lost ci. splendid opportunity to conclude this matter by a vote, and . in view of the speeches we have he~d today 1 think 1 am justified in saying that no attempt is being made to stop the fighting in Palestine, but that there is an obvious attempt to inake political capital out of,it. However, in my opinion it is not right that the members of the Security Council~ the in1:erpreters and the other officials of the Secretariat should be deprived ofthe rest to which we are alI entitled today, on Sundayand on Monday, and be obliged tù attend these meetings in order to 'listen to political speeches-speeches which, as 1 say, serve no purpose .but to make political capital. In the Security Council we frequently hear strong words, but without resorting to them' 1 can certainly say that we have heard speeches that are farcical, since they are not intended to lead to any conclusion. In these circumstances 1 think wc could adjourn the meeting until Tuesday and observe ih.e next two days' holiday to which we are entitled, since no one wishes to take any decision on Palestine. I submit a formal proposal to that effect. Mr. MALIK (Lebanon): The representative of the USSR, Mr. Gromyko, always repeats that ~e USSR sympathizes with the national aspirations of the Arabs fGr liberation. I must. sincerely thank him for this noble feeling on the P~t of his ~eat country, but I. wish to assure him that the policy of the USSR regarding the Palestine question precludes any response to USSR sympathies, not only from Arab poliûcians and governing circles whom he does not seem to like very much, but aIso from the masses of' the Arab peoples themselves to whom the USSR has always meant to appéal. The most decisive fact-I repeat, the most decisive fact -about Arab feeling concerning Palestine which is often overlooked.is that it has gripped the masses as nothing eIse has done since the rise of Islam in the seventh century. It is not a .

According to rule 33 of the rules of procedm:e, aU questions regarding the suspension or the adjournment of a meeting mustbe given precedence and must be decided without debate. . 1shall, therefore, put to the vote the proposal of the. representative of Argentina, wmch is contrary to that of the President, in that it suggests that we should adjourn until Tuesday instead of until this afternoon. The proposaI was rejected by 10 votes to J.

We shaU meet again àt 2.30 p.m. THREE HUNDRED AND TENTH MEETING H eld at Lake SuccessJ New Y orkJ on SaturdaYJ 29 May 1948J at 2.30 p.m. President: MI'. A. PARODI (France). Present: The representatives of the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Syria, Ukra~an Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Re- publics, United Kingdom, United States of America. The agenda waf that of the 309th meetingJ document S/Agenda 309. 96. Continuation of the discussion on the Palestine question The PRÈSIDENT (translated from French): Before calling on the Syrian representative to speak, 1 shol1ld like to bring to your notice this telegram from the Chairman of the Truce Com- mission [document S/800J: ."Jerusalem 29 May 1948 "Last night at 1800 hours (Palestine time) the Jewish quarter of the Dld Citysurrendered unconditionally. The men were taken prisoners of war and the women and children were evacu- ated to the Katamon quarter by the Internatiqnal Red Cross. This evacuation involving about one