S/PV.317 Security Council

Since our last meeting a few days ago [314th meeting], the Security Council has received two documents from the United Nations Mediator, which have been distributed as documents S/830 and S/831.. 1 shall ask the Assistant Secretary-General to read these documents ta the Security Council. Mr. KERNO (Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Department) : The fust message [document S/830] reads as follows: "1 have the honour to transmit the following message from the United Nations Mediator to the interested Governments concerning the acceptance of the truce: '1. 1 have the honour to inform you that in response to my note of 7 June setting fortl1 my proposals as United Nations Mediator for truce in Palestine, 1 have today, 9 June, received unconditional acceptance of my proposals from aIl interested parties. The cease·fire and truce, therefore, will be effective Friday, 11 June 1948 at 6 a.m., GMT. '2. Public announcement of the acceptance "f the truce by the parties concerned will be made by me in Cairo tonight, 9 June, at 8 o'dock, GMT. Simultaneous announcement may be "1 am, ::if course, highly gratified that niy efforts toward the truce have now borne fruit. 1 will do my utmost to supervise the terms of the truce fairly and efficiently and will immediately turn my attention to the broader aspects of my task as Mediator, mainly the promotion of a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine. . (8igned) Count BERNADOTTE" .The Second messa.ge [document S/831] reads as follows: "Following is text ofsecond message senttoday, Wednesday, 9.June, by United Nations Mediator to aIl interested Govemments: '1. 1 have the honour to communicate to you certain points which occur ta me as especially important with regard to the application of the truce in Palestine which has been accepted by all parties today, Wednesday, 9 June 1948. '2. It is my eamest hope that'every .commander in the field on both sicles will be notified of t.lte date and hour of the cease-fire and truce in ample time to make all necessary preparations and to .avoid any misunderstandings or incidents. - '3. 1 also appeal to both sides to take every possible measure, including explanations by wireless, ta ensure thattheir peoples ·will· be fully informçd of the effective date and hour of the cease-fire and truce a~d of its. significance to the end !hat incidents which might endanger. the truce may be reduced to a minimum.' (Sig? d) Count BERNADOTTE"

1 understand that therepresentative of the United States of America wishes to say a few words in connexion with the documents which have just beèn tèad. Mr. JESSUP (United States of America): l, Wish. to express the gratification of my Government at the successful conclusion of the negotiationH for a cease-fire in Palestine. Once again No one can appreciate more keenly than the members of the Security Council the extent of .the accomplishment of the United Nations Mediator in Palestine. The complexity and the stubbornness of the difficulties which Count Bernadotte has.overcome are well-known to us. We have listened to the opposing points of vicw, and have wrestled for many an hour with the problems they presented. We, therèfore, can be especially appreciative of. the fact that this cease-fire agreement contains within it many of the elements of a truce. On the basis of the agreements reachecl, we have reason to hope that the negotiations that have led us thus far can be extended into an enduring settlement. Today it is appropriate for us to extend our thanks to Count Bernadotte far his achievement. His wisdom, his fairness, bis energy and his firmness have won the respect of all. He has succeeded in one of the most difficult tasks known to statesmanship, namely, that of securing a truce ln a situation in w!rich active war had already begun. His peJ'Sonal skill combined with the authority of the United Nations has brought a halt to death and·destruction in Palestine. It is a good beginning for the difficult work that lies ahead.

This is the fiJ'St successful step taken in this matter. As the Mediator said in the last paragraph of his fiJ'St letter [document 8/830]: "... will immediately turn Iny attention to the broader aspects of my task as :tvfedia1;or, mainly the promotion of a peaceful adjustp,ent of the future s~tuation of Palestine." As authority was given to the Mediator to take up this task of the fulfilment of the resolution of tlÎe General Assembly of 14 Mayl and the resolution of the Security Council [document 8/801], 1 think no further discussion can be held on this point. We have to wait for the second report The Security Councii wishes, 1 am sure, to reply to the Mediator on this point and encourage him further to continue his task of establishing permanent peace in Palestine. The establishment of temporary peace, up to now, may be regarded as a success, but what we wish for is permanent peace, and we hope it will be achieved during the negotiations and the mediation which will be carried on during these four weeks. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet SociaIist Republics) (translated trom Russian): At ()ur last meeting [314th meeting] 1 raised the question of the participation of USSR military observers.in connexion with the implementation of the Security Council resolution of 29 May 1948. We did not conc1ude the discussion of this question. It would be desirable therefore that we should discuss it at this meeting. The ~RESIDENT: Yes, it is true that the discussion on this point was not conc1uded at the last meeting, and that it was deferred until this meeting. For this reason, 1 invited the members of the Security Council to speak on this point. The representative of the USSR is invited to speak, if he wishes to. The representative of France has a.sked to be heard on another point. As ~he representative of the USSR has no objection, we shaH hear from the representative of France, who wül speak on another subject which has already been discussed. Mr. PAROD! (France) (translation trom French): What 1 wish tc.' Jay, and 1 shall be very brief, refers ta what yull said yourself, Mr. PreSident, before the question of observer& had been raised. 1 think that the United States representative has just expressed the general opinion of the members of the Council. In my opinion it would be well to send a telegram to the Mediator-as a matter of fact, '1 believe you proposed that }'ourse1f-to thank him and perhaps also to say that we consider bis interpretation of the terms 1 of our resolution a fair and?ccurate one, in conformity with the spirit of the resolution we have adopted, even if it does not coincide with ours in every detail.

1 do not think it wH! be necessary for us to :eefer to the interpretations as long as they have not been challenged. The Mediator did not ask for 'confirmation of them. As long as we know that there are certain reservations on that point we had better follow the sense of the statement of the representative of the United States. . We cannot agree to this view:, as the question of military observers has not yet been settled. It is not a matter of interpretation, because there is nothing to interpret. The whole question of miJitilI"}' observers must be discussed and clarified, in regard to the relevant paragrap~ of the Security Coup.cil resolution of 29 May so as to remove any ambiguity concerning the tasks of the Mediator in Palestine. The USSR delegation expresses the hope that the Security Council will have no objection to the utilization of USSR military observers along with -the military observers of sorne other countries, to whose utilization the Soviet Union has no objection. .

1have aIready put this point before the Security Council for debate and discussion, and the Security Council is ready to listen to those who wish to deal with this matter in any way. This point has been raised by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.)~ and the resolution of the Security Council of 29 May states: "Instructs the United Nations Medïator 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 o'hservers." .As 1 saià yesterday, it is not made clear who will nominate or appoint or select these military observers. The Mediator thought that he would be the rigMperson to do'so, in concert with the 'l'ruœ Commission, and he has started to do ..'10. If ôeSecurity Council wishes to aclopt any other kind of action in this matter, the Mediator would certalnly not be in a position to oppose that. This is the matter under discussion, and 1 will be happy to recognize those who wish to spea.~ on this point. 1 ~ntirely within the competence of t.~e-Security Council to change the decision it made in paragraph 7 of the resoiution of 29 May and to provide other means for carrying out the task of the Mediator of supervision and observation of the cease-fire in Palestine. The United States, of course, would.consider itself bound by any new decison which the Security Council might take for the establishment of any new regime. 1 repeat tl1at, in (lur opinion, it seems to us that the arrangement a1r~ady an1ved at and already in operation is a simple and practical one, which the Council has already authorized and established in its resolutiO'r.l of 29 May.

If no member wishes to comment or speak on this point, certainly 1 cannot engage the Council to wait indefinitely. We have no other point. We can adjcurn now until such time as 1 receive any proposal or draft resolution on the subject or until any member wishes to re-open the. subject and present any suggestion to the Council. 1 ·Mr. TARASENKO (Ukrainian Soviet SociJ.!d 1 . Republîc) (transltated fr,om Russian):. 1 wm. i rather surprised by the statement.of the United 1 t 1 consider it essential that we should take an appropriat<: decislOn on this question and clarify Û'Js paragraph, so that the Mediator may be able to interpret it not arbitrarily but on the basis of definite decisions of the Security Council. This is an important question and it should not he relegated to the Mediator. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Repnblics) (translated fram Russian): ln the first pl~ce we m:;<;t clearly realize that there has been.no deC:f,Jon. on the question of which countri~s are to sena military observers. The Security Council re30lution of 29 M;ay merely states: This means that the Mediator and the Truce Comnnssion are to be provided with a sufficient number of'military observers. Who is to attach these observers to the Mediator anù the Truce Commission? Obviously, ft must be the Security Council which took the decisions, inc1uding the decision to establish a Truce Commission. The United States representative's statement can only be interpreted as meaning that the Government of the United States takes a negative attitude towards the USSR proposal that USSR military observers should be included in the group of observers who are to carry out specific functions in accordance with the resolution of 29 May. The United States representative asserts that l.L..~ question is c1ear and simple, but it is hard to see how it ean be c1ear when there is still no decision as to who is to provide the military observers; nor is it possible ta understand how the question can be simple when there is no decision as ta who is to provide these militâry observers and in what way it is to be done. We cannot agree that the question is c1ear and simple merely because the United States Government wishes to sc::nd a group of its military observers to Palestine together wit.lt a group of French and a group of Belgian observers and does not wish USSR obsel"'/ers to participate in carrying out the tasks arising out of the resolu·· tion of 29 May. This is no sufficient reason for saying that everything is clear and simple, and that no decisio~ are required. On what grounds can the United States object to the utilization of a small group of Soviet military observets in Palestine? There are no legitimate grounds for this objection. No one in his right mind can understand ·why United States, French and Belgian military observers should be present in Palestine, while. USSR ob8ervers may not. Why h..;ve the United States, France and Be1gium more grounds for sending their observers to ~alestine, than the USSR? Perhaps one of the l'epresentatives on the Security Coundl will explain to us why these three countrial have more grounds for sending their military observers to Palestine than the USS,R? Of course, nobody can put fm'ward any intelligible or convh1t:Ïng reason in ?upport of the view thr,è i:~;:w beeL' expresseèl here by the United Stat~ r;;pl'f'sr-.w tative. The Soviet Union ha.s grounds which are certainly no less coglént than those of the United States for h-H::luding a small group of military ()bservers, possibly smal1er in number than the The assertion that this qu~tion èan be decided by n'le Mediator or in concert with the Truce Cow.mission, is unconvincing. In practice, the question is being decided by the Mediator and the Truce Commission-namely by the United States, France and Belgium, and it is they who are taking decisions to send therr own milital"Y observers to Palestine. If this is considered right, then 1 s~lOuld like to know what would be considered an incorrect solution of the question. 0~eurity Couneil will raise no objection tù the participatior. of a smal1 group of Soviet military observers, along with the military observers of other countries, in carrying out in Palestine the tasks ar..sing out of the Security Council decision of 29 May. 1 should like to add just a few words. You stated, Mr. President, that in the absence of any formal proposal it was difficult ta discuss this question further. 1 think that the Soviet proposaI is c1ear and that there should rea1ly be no àiffi- culties in the discussion of this question. If, how- ever, anybody feeIs t;hat it is difficult to discuss' this question further without a formal proposal in writing, then l reserve the right to submit such a formal proposal regarding the question of mili-: tary observers at the next meeting of the Security Council tû consider this question. General McNAUGHTON (Canada): 1 think that from what we have heard of î:he splendid Ï.tïitiative shown by our Mediator, we can have every confidence in his proper interpretation of the Security CouncÎl's resolution of 29 May. In this resolution the Mediator is instructed ta ~~pervise the observance of the truce in concert with the Truce Commission. If w'" turn ta the previous resolution of the Security Council~ dated 23 April, [document S/727J, we find that the function of the Truce Commission is to assist the Security Council in supervisillg the implemen-

Pending the submission to the Security Council of any proposaI, either to the effect that the observers Ir'~entioned in paragraph 7 of the resolution are to be supplied by the Member States cornposing the Truce Commission or by States selected by the Security Council, 1 think that we may suspend the discussion on this point. When we receivesuch a proposai, it will be discussed iri due course. As there is no objection, 1 sh.:lU adjourn the meJting now, and we shall meet .again on this question on Tuesday, 15 June, at 3 p.m. In the meantime, wc may receive sorne interesting news from the Mediator which would necessitate our convoking a meeting. 1 remind the members that 'there .will be a, meeting of the Security Council at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow, with r~gard to the Atomic Energy Commission. The meeting rose at 4.35 p.m.