S/PV.314 Security Council

l would inforrn the members of the·'Security Council that we have not .received any new information from the Mediator since the lâst coÎnmunication which.we had with 1ilin on Friday evening,4o June. Following isa statement of the events which have taken place ·since the la,st meeting of· the Security Council on Thursday, 3 June [313th meeting]. MT, Bunche, the principal secretary ta the 'Mediator, was,then contacted in Cairo by telephone. He' said that the President's statement had not yet been received by the Mediator, although a message containing this statement had aIready been dispatched'to him from Lake Success. The substance of thePresident's statement was therefore read to' Mr. Bunche, for transmission to, the Mediator. Mr. Bunche inquired whether the Mediator wauld be carrectin interpreting the basic intent of the resolution as meaning that no military advantage should accrue to either side as a result of the application of the trUCè fdr the periad of four weeks. He ad.ded that it would !rlelp the Mediator if the President of the Security Couneil could confirm this Ïntent. The President of the SecurityCouncil con- .finned that this was the intent of the resolutian and agreed that the Mediator should be in· formed accordingly; at the same time, he agreed that the Mediator's attention should be drawn to ~he preamble of theresolution, which ex- .pressed a desire ". . . to bring about a cessation · of hostilities in Palestine without prejudice ta the rights, claims al,ld position ofeither Arabs or Jews". Contactwas again èstablished ~ith the Medi:.. ator .in Cairo, and the President's views were conveyed ta him.. The Mediator, having considered thestatement made by ·the President of 'the Security Council on Thursday afternoon, in · addition to the President's confirmation of the intentoI the Resolution, undertook to continue bis .efforts on the spot to' seek an agreed inter- ,pretation of the resolution, and to refer to the Security Council only if bis interpretatioIlS were cha.1lenged~· .' The President of the Security Council; in. agreement with the Secretary-General, then decided that the meeting of the Security Council could be deferred. . The above are the events which took place up to midnight of Friday, 4 June. Wc have not re'- .ceivedany report as to the results of the efforts 'whièhhave been exercised by the Mediator.· Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Sècialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): ln the opinion of the dek:gation of the USSR, one of the paragraphs of the Security Council resolution of 29 May requires sorne clarification. l refer to the paragraph reading as follows: "Instructs the United Nations Mediator for Palestine in concert with the Truce Commission to supervise the observance of the above provisions, and decides that they shall be provided with a sufficient number of military observers." Sorne time ago it was reported in the Press that the question of military observers was being discussed in the conversations between the Mediator and the Truce Commission. There were even reports that an agreement had already been reached regarding the countries which would send observers to Palestine in accordance with the Security Council resolution. We do not know officially whether these reports correspond ta the facts. Anyway, this matter deserves our attention if only because-as 1 have already pointed outthe resolution is not sufficientIy clear in the part relating to the assignment of a certain number of military observers to the Mediator and the Truce Commission. As regards the USSR, 1 deem it essential to state that it is prepared, together with the other countries directIy concerned, to send its ob· servers to Palestine to fulfil the functions provided for in the Security Council resolution of 29 May. ln my opinion, it is essential that this question should be discussed in the Security Council and that it should be clarified with a view to determining the manner in which 'these w.ilitary observers are to be assigned to the Mediator and the Truce Commission. It would be desirable to have this matter discussed at· our present meeting, if there is no objection and if the Security Council is prepared to do so.

Before calling on the representative of France who, 1 believe, wishes to speak on another point, 1 must state that 1 have also been informed of' this matter coricerning the calling of officers as observers, not from any official source, but from the Press. 1 found, on inquiry, that neither the office of the President of the Security Council nor the Secretariat of the United Nations ha.d received any application 1 understood that the Mediator intended to apply for military observers from the States which are members of the Secmity CanDcil Truce Commission, that is, the United States of America, France and Belgium. 1 understand that it is true that the Mediator has made such an application for a certain number of military observers; but we have no information about it. The matter has not been brought to the attention of the Security Couneil from any source. It was rny thought that, if the Mediator interpreted the resolution as meaning that he would apply direcdy to the States from which he would get his support, that perhaps he had acted in the same way in this case and had applied to those States without making an official request of the Security Couneil. However, 1 expect that those States will themselves inform the Security Council that they have been asked to participate in providing military observers by sending officers from among their own nationals. l' thought that the matter would be brought to the attention of the Security Council in that way. We have not received anything formai or official on thÏs point until now. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 should like to ask when we are going to discuss the question 1 have raised. Are we going to di'lcUSS it today or at our next meeting? The PRESIDE:NT: 1 believe .it is possible ta discuss that question .:=\fter we have disposed of the other matter that 1 have presented, and after we have heard the representative of France. This "question falls within our agenda; and it may be discussed at this meeting, at the discretion of the members of the Security Council. We shall take up that question after we have disposed of the other matter. Ml'. PARODI (France) (translated trom French): 1 should like to comment briefly on the last matter hrought to our notice by the President, concerning a conversation with the Mediator. In the course of that conversation, if 1 am not mistaken, the Mediator said he intends, to present us a report on Wednesday, 9 June, by which date he will be in a position to judge whether or not his negotiations for a truce have been successful. That Wall, 1 believe, the gist of the President's communication. 1 think 1 am right in saying that the truce , has been agreed to by the two parties; it has .been accepted subject to certain differences of 1 think the Mediator's attention should be drawn to this unanimous interpretation of the Security Council. It remains to fix the date on which the truce is to begin, and for the Mediator to continue the legitimate efforts he has aIready made to bring the divergent Înterpretations closer together and establish a modus vivendi, a way of implementing the truce which would take inte account, as much as possible, the observations macle by the two parties. 1 think it very important ta maintain the result which was regarded as achieved, namely the unconditionaI acceptance of the truce by the two parties.

At the meeting of the Security Council last Thursday [313th meeting], it was considered by the Security COl'ncil that the truce had been accepted unconditionaIly. It was clear ta the Security Council that bath parties placed different interpretations on certain passages of the resolution. It was then stated that it was not for the parties to mah., their own interpretations and impose them, but rather that it was for the Mediator, who has the confidence of the Secunty Council, to interpret the passages and the terms of the resolution and to communicate this interpretation to the parties. If the interpretation of the Mediator is challenged by either or both of the parties, then, and only then, the matter will be referreà to the Security Council. The difference is just a matter of interpretation; the truce was accepted and effective. Bath the parties gave differing interpretations, and these are the obstacles to the conclusion of a truce agreement. It is quite weIl known that a truce agreement should he concluded on the basis of the resolution, as interpreted by the Mediator and confirmed by the Security Council, if it is challenged. For this reason, we ;;).1'1: waiting to see what interpretation the Mediator will give to the disputed points, and when it is submitted to them,· if that interpretation is rejected by the parties, then the matter will be referred to the Security Council for a ruling on the contested points. In this case, 1 do not think we can proceed any further with that point at this meeting. We are awaiting the decision of the Mediator on the contested points which are now hindering or impeding the conclusion of the truce agreement. We will now pa....~ to the point raised by the representatîve of the USSR. MI'. JESSUP (United States of America) : The paragraph of the resolution of the Security Cauneil of 29 May to which attention hasbeen called states that the United Nations Mediator, in concert with the Truce Commission, is to supel"visethe observance of the provisions· set Mr.PAROD! (France) (translated trom French): The French Govemment has been approached on the same conditions as those indicated by the United States representative: it was requested by the Mediator to furnish a certain number of military observers to assist in the implementation of the truce. This request was made to my country as a member of the Truce Commission. The French Goveœment is now <:onsidering the matter. Mr. VAN LANGENHÜVE (Belgium) (translated trom French): A similar approach has been made to the Belgian Government, which has agreed in principle. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Sovi.::t Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): It is therefore confirmeà that the Govemments of the United States of America, France a:td Belgium have been approached by the Mediator regarding the dispatch of military observe:cs to Palestine in accordance with the Security Council resolution of-29 May. The gist of the matter is precisely that we must clarify the whole question , of sending military observefil to Palestine, since the resolution is not clear on tbis point. The point at issue is not the interpretation of the resolution bythe Mediator or by anyone else, but the necessityof taking a decision as ta which countries are to send their military observers to Palestine in &1ccordance with this resolution. When the Security Council adopted the resolution of 29 May, it did not settle that question, but left it open. Therefore, the question is not" one of interpretation as"'there .is nothing to interpret, because there has been no decision either as to who is to send military'observers or in what manner. If the Govemments of sorne countries consider that the mere fact of the United States, France and Belgium being members of the Truce Com- ' mission has already determL'led in advance that these countries are to send their military observers to Palestine, we cannot agree to that view. The question arises: why is it that these countries would alone send or would be the ones p.ermitted to send military obseivets? This "logic", as you l'lee, is not distinguished for its modesty and it is impossible for us to agree with it. Hence the delegation of the USSR lias raised this question, with a view to asking the Security Council to clarify the relevant clause of itsresolution of 29 May and clear up this question completely. As regards the position of the USSR, l have alteady stated that it would be prepared to send, together with certain other countries, miEtary observers for the purpose of carrying O·Jt the functions provided for in the Security Coun- ~~.~esolutionof 29 May. We are tQld that there has been no official communication from the Mediator. Perhaps the absence of a specifie communication hinders the discussion of this questi/)n. If the other members of the Security Council feel that thîs is so, we could perhaps discuss the question at our next meeting. If, however, the absence of any offidal cOIll..ffiunication on this question from the Medi· ator offers no serious obstacle, let us discuss it :t our present meeting. ec The PRESIDENT: It is true, as the representative of the USSR stated, that the resolution provides that the Truce Commission, together with the Mediator, "shall be provided with a sufficient number of milit;:uy observers". It does not state in what way this provision would be made or who would provide them-the Security Couneil, the Mediator or the Truce Com-' mission on its own initiative-or whether they would be provided voluntarily by the different States. Under the present conditions, the Mediator and the Truce Commission seem to have taken the liberty of interpreting this to mean that they a=~ to take the initiative. They found the pro- VISIon of these ofliCers by the members of the Truce Commission to be the shortest way. They took this step even before bein?" informed of the statemênt we had made at the last meeting of the Security Council that the matter of interpretation would be vested in the Mediator. As this question has been raised, l do not believe it is possible to take a definite stand on it at this meetmg. This question needs to be weIl thought over and studied by the memberS of the , je Ml'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 have already said that if the Security Council is not prepared to discuss this matter at the present meeting, perhaps we cau discuss it at our next one. "As regards the standpoint from which the USSR is interested in this question, 1 have already spoken on that subject.

We shall close the discussion on this point at this meeting, and we shall take it up ut the next meeting. The Security Council has bpfore it document S/826, which is a letter presented by the representative of the Jewish Agency, amI. which states certain points on which agreement has been reached with the Mediator. 1 should prefer ta wait before discussing these points, until we receive confirmation from the Mediator, as just stated. MI'. EBAN (Jewish Agency for PaIestine): 1 have received information concerning yesterday's negotiations xn Haïfa between the Mediator and the ProvisionaI Government of Israel. This information relates to a certain crucial point at issue, and it had been my intention to give that information this aftemoon, together with certain observations upon it. However, it appears that these negotiations are not yet concluded,and the final attitude of the Mediator has not yet been communicated. In view of this and of the Mediatot's appeal to avoid discussion, 1 should prefer to withhold any detailed comments at this rime, in the hope that the Security Council will grant an early opportunity to enable me to explain the views of the Provisional Govemment of Israel on certain proposaIs which have been made in the course of these negotiations. In the meantime, Ît would, 1 think, be sufficient for me to express our fundamental attitude on the resolution of 29 May. The Provisional Government of Israel accepts the terms and injunctions of that resolution. It does not pledge itself ta accept anything which is not based on the exact text of that resolution. It expresses its surprise that the cease-fire order, which the Council issued through the resolution, has met 'with no response from the other side or from the Security Council, and that.other provisions of the resolution are receiving more attention than the ctase-tire provision itseH. In our understanding the Security Council did not rer.:ommend a truce agreement. It issued a cease-fire appeal to which. one side responded and the other did not. We further understood, after Finally, we are compeUed to ask ourselves how the Security Council regards these delays in the light of what is actually happening in the territory of Palestine, where the war is proceeding with unabated fury. The State of Israel is more than capable of its own defence and will, of course, maintain that defence. But the question arises as to how the Security Council should feel while the territory of Jerusalem, which belongs to the United Nations, is being bombarded by invaders of that territory. It is now 7 June. On 19 May the Security Council passed a resolution [document S/773J calling upon the Truce Commission and upon aU parties concerned to give the highest priority to the negotiation and maintenance of a truce in the City of Jerusalem. That was nineteen days ago, and it seems ta us that this sort of delay cannot go on without afIecting t4e prestige and authority of the Security Council and the seriousness with which its decisions are regarded by the people for whom these issues are a matter of life and death. sa

l suggest that the next .. mee:ting on the Palestine question be held on Thmsday, 10 June. We are expecting ta receive the Mediators report. We shall have it on Thursday m,)rning, and we shall hold our meeting Thursday afternoon at 2.30 p.m. While on this subject, l shall make a tentative list for the meetings to be held this week. The Security Council has before it a letter [document 8/825J from the representative of the Indian delegation, transmitting to the Security Council the views of the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of India, Pandit Nehru, concerning the two resolutions of the Security Council which have alreadybeen communicated to them [documents S/819 and 8/726J. As regards the importance of the points made in this letter, l feel they merit irnmeœate discussion and a reply appropriate to the situation. Thereforf' l suggest that we have a meeting tomorrm, at 2.30 p.m. to discuss this question because this matter concerns instructions to be given ta the Commission, which is already on its way. Before it arrives at its destination, it must receive sorne instructions on the matter; the Government of India is also asking for an immediate reply. .cette lettre, With regard ta the meeting of Wednesday, 9 June, we have the Indonesian question ta he considered. You know that the Committee of Good Offices on the Indonesian Ouestion has recentIy sent three reports [docu~nts S/729, 8/786, S/787J on the matter unqer discussion, and it is requested that they be sùbmitted ta the Security Council and that the Council should make known its attitude in regard to them. l Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 should appreciate ït if the President could find it possible to postpone the meeting on Indonesia from Wednesday afternoon to Thursday morning.

There is no other meeting llcheduled for Thursday morning. If there is no objection, the meeting on Indonesia will be heid on Thursday morning at 10 a.m. This will mean that there will be no meeting scheduled for Wednesday. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): Mr. President, if 1 am not mistaken you informed the Security Council that the Mediator intended to report to the Security Council on Wednesday, that is ta say, in two days' time, on the situation in Palestine and on his tallΠ~~Tith both parties; at the same time, you stated that the Palestine question would be discussed as the second item on. Friday. Would it not be appropriate to deal with this question before Friday, if not on Wednesday, then on Thursday, since a communication from the Mediator is ej"?ected on Wednesday?

1 have fixed it for Thursday. 1 said Thursday. That is exactly what 1 said. 1 think there is a misunderstanding about that. 1 said if there was anything urgent we might insert it on the agenda of another meeting. But we shall celtainly take up the Palestine question on Thursday afternoon. At the request of the representative of China, we may take up the Indonesian question on Thursday morning at 10.30. In that case it seems now that no meeting would be scheduled on Wednesday. It would bea holiday. AU right. On this understanding we may adjourn the meetLl1g. The meeting rose at 4.10 p.m. AUSTRALIA-AUSTRALIE FINLAND-FINLANDE H. A. Goddard Pty. Ltd. Akateeminen 255a George Street 2, Keskuskatu SYDNEY, N. S. W. HELSINKI BELGIUM-BELG/QUE FRANCE Agence et Messageries de la Editions A. Pedone Presse, S. A. 13, rue Soufflot 14-22 rue du Persil PARIS, y. BRUXELLES BOLIVIA-BOLlVIE GRiEECE-GRECE Libreria Cientifica y Literaria "Eleftheroudakis" Avenida 16 de Julio, 216 Lihrairie internationale Casilla 972 Place de la Constitution LA PAZ ATHÈNES CANADA GUATEMALA The Ryerson Press José Goubaud 299 Queen Street Wcet Goubaud & Ciao TORONTO Sucesor 5a Av. Sur No. CHILE-CHILI GUATEMALA Edmundo Pizarro Merced 846 HAITI SANTIAGO Max Bouchereau Librairie "A CHINA-CHINE Boîte postale The Commercial Press Ltd. PORT-AU-PRINCE 21I Honan Road SHANGHAI INDIA-INDE COLO~BIA-eOLOMBIE Oxford Book Scindia House Libreria Latina Ltda. NEW DELHI Apartado Aéreo 4011 BOGOTA IRAN COSTA RICA-COSTA-RICA Bongahe Piaàerow Trejos Hemlanos 731 Shah Avenue Apartado 1313 TEHERAN SAN JOSE IRAQ-IRAK CUBA Mackenzie & La Casa Belga The Bookshop René de Smedt BAGHDAD iD'Reilly 455 LA HABANA LEBANON-LiBAN Librairie universelle CZECHOS,",OVAKiA- BEYROUTH TCHECOSLOVAQUIE F. Topi~ LUXEMBOURG Narodni Trida 9 Librairie J. Schummer PRAHA l Place Guillaume LUXEMBOURG DENMARK-D.4NEMARK Einar Munskgaard Norregade 6 NETHERLAND5-PAYS-B,AS KJOBENHAVN N. Y. Martinus Lange Yoorhout DOMINICAN REPUBlIC- S'GRAvENHAGE REPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE NEW ZEALAND- Libreria Dominicana Calle Mercedes No. 49 NOUVELLE-ZELANDE Apartado 656 Gordon & Gotch, CIUDAD TRUJILLO Waring Taylor WELLINGTON ECUADOR-EQUATEUR Muiioz Hermanos y Ciao NICARAGUA Nueve de Octubre 703 Ramiro Ramirez Casilla 10-24 Agencia de GUAYAQUil, MANAGUA, D.