S/PV.320 Security Council

S~ce our last meeting, we have received varions communications. One of We have also received another report [document S/ 839] from the Mediator, in which he reports the communications which he had re" ceived concerning the execution of the truce agreement. He states that sorne objections and comments were made by both sides and he gives the results of his discussions. The matter has now been settled and both parties have decided to respect the truce agreement. . Another cablegram from the Mediator [dOCU-\ ment S/83.7] is of sorne importance. It reads as follows: "For the attention of the President of the Security Council: "In ûider to provide most satisfactory conditions fùr the enforcement of the cease-fire and truce agreement, would appreciate your approval of following procedure in the handlillg of aIl communications from interested parties concerning the execution of the agreement. Suggest that aIl communications from interested parties be submitted to the Mediator and that he should exercise the discretion of reporting to the Security Council on an data with respect to enforcement at sl,lch time as will harmoni~e with the achievement of our aims. "Count BERNADOTTE" In compliance with the request of the Mediator, 1 sent him the following cablegram on the same day: "Have honouT acknowledge your cable 12 June regarding procedures in handIing aIl communications from interested parties concerning execution of the cease-fire and truce agreement. Agreed that aIl communications from interested parties shovld be submitted to you and that you should exercise the discretion of reporting to the Security Cauneil such complaints and their disposition at such time as will harmonize with the achievement of our aims." 1 have sent him this cable, which was communicated also to the interested parties, and the Mediator has acted accordingly. Since that time, an complaints have been submitted to him and, according to his report, to which 1 have just referred, he has been studying and investigating them with good and peaceful results. 1 received another cablegram [document S/840] from the Mediator, dated 15 Junethat is toùay-just bef0re this meeting, addressed "The United Nations Mediator requests the President of the Security Council ta take such action as may be necessary to ask the States Members ta report on steps taken on implementation of the 29 May resolution of the Security Council and to call to their attention, as weIl as ta that of non-members, if feasible, from which substantial immigration te. Palestine or ta Àrab States might emanate, paragraph 6 of the truce proposaIs and to request them to extend co-operation and assistance ta the United Nations Mediator in the implementation of the 'provisions of the truce proposaIs." 1 think that after the resolution was adopted by the Security Council [31Oth meeting], the Secretariat communicated with Membel' States requesting them ta act in accordance with the .sixth and thirteenth paragraphs, and sent each .of them a copy of the resolution. The sixth paragraph stat~s: «Urges all Governments and authoritÏe.'3 COli- .cerned to take every possible precaution for the protection of the Holy Places" etc, The thirteenth paragraph, which refers to th~ situation connected with the cablegram l have just read, states: "Calls upon aIl Governments t'.> take an possible steps to assist in the implementation of this resolution." Therefore, this would inc1ude aIl States-not only Member States, but non-member States as weIl-and would be acting in accordance with Chapter l, Arl:jcle 2, paragraph 6, of the Charter, which states: "The organization shall ensure that States which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security." However, l intended to send the Mediator a reply stating that we have acted according ta his request, bm as the cablegram arrived just now, l thought it would be best to consult the Security Council on this point. If there is no objection, l shall follow the procedure outlined, and inform the Secretariat to communicate the .request of the Mediator ta aIl States and ask them to collaborate. The Mediator refers aIso ta paragraph 6, ;sub-paragraphs (1) and (~) of the truce agreement, as contained in document S/829, which .states: "2. As regards men of military age" etc. It 18 fi connexion with this paragraph that the attention of the Member States <illd the nonmember States would be called, and a request would he made of them to help in OOplementing the truce agreement and in rendering any possible service to the Mediator which would assist him in his task. If tnere is no objection on ~e part of the members of the Security Council, we shaH conduct the business of the Security Council in thaf way. It seems that the members of the Security Council agree to this procedure. We are glad to know that L~e truce has been going on very well during yesœrday and today, and . the Mediator expects it to continue in this way until the end. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): l have a question to ask. Do the two parties agree to the Mediator's proposals? 1 am referring to the two parties directly concerned in this matter.

According to our knowledge in that respect, they have been infonned that any objection, opposition, or challenge to the decisions of the Mediator should be communicated to hOO, and then he himself, at his discretion, will report to the Security COUDcil. We have not heard from him that there ID any disagreement with regard ta these poirts; therefore, it seems that the parties agree on the proposaIs which he made. . Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): Mr. President, 1 suppose you are referring to document S/837 which states·that the parties directly concerned may submit their communications to the Mediator only. Approval of SUCll a procedure would app~ently mean that the parties would not be able to communicate directly with the Security Council. 1 think it would be wrong to deprive the parties of the right ta communicate with the Security .Couilcil if they deem it expedient. The Mediator's proposaI as set forth in this dc"ument fills me with grave misgiving. 1 Conseil The l'RESIDENT: They have been advised, as a matter of convenience, to address their objec- tions ta the Mediator first, and the Mediator will transmit those objections to the Security Council together with his opinion. If the parties address their objections ta the Security Council, the Security Council, before it takes any de.cision Nevertheless, we cannot reject any application made by the States concerned, if they wish te submit it tn the Security Couneil. Furthermore, we have not as yel. received any communication in that respect, and we are not going to invite the parties to address complaints ta us if they have no complaints to submit. It is leit to their discretion. If they wish to make application to the Security Cauncil, we shall certainly no~ re- ject it, but we should not try to push them into the submission of objections and the raising of opposition. We shall be glad not to receive any- thing of the sort. If things go on peacefully, so much the better.. Mr. EBAN (Jewish Agency {or Palestine): As l understand it, the procedure advocated by the Mediator is that the parties should é'ddress themse1ves in the first instance to him h:!th their c~mplaints or questions of interpretation, and the anticipation is that many of those points might be cleared up in the course of those dis- cussions taking pla.;e on the scene. However, should it appear that certain controversies or cOllflicts of interpretation cannot he resolved by that discussion, we understand that the parties wouJd not be precluded from ·seeking to bring their objections or their differences of opinion directly before the Security Council. On that understanding it appears to my de1eg~tion that a satisf,lctory procedure is hete involved. With relation to the specific matter which the Mediator brings to the attention of the S~curity que ConDcil in document 8/840, we understand that de the Mediator is here seeking the co-operation semble and assistance of Member States in carrying out 1 des those agreed controIs which are contained in the , qui Mediator's adrlress to the parties on 7 June, that fait he i.e; not asking them to assume any new initia- aux tive or any new responsibilities for supervision, que and especiallythat h\~ is not establishing con- bres ni d'assumer aucune tâche nouvdIe, trois other than those· which are explicity stated dosser in his communication of 7 June. surveillance. , blit explicitement tion 8pëaking for one of the parties, the Provi- sional Government of Israel, that io; our under- standing of these two communications. des soire sens listes d'une ,clairement: tions privées rité, jugent utile. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Rèpublics) (translated trom Russian): This question needs some clarification. As a matter of principle, it is' importa:nt tha,t the parties should not be deprived of the right ta co~uni­ cate with the Security Council whenever they think fit. It is one thing to recommend that the parties should first communicate with the Medi- If it is intended that the parties should com- municate with the Mediator in the first instance, and that we should merely recommend such a procedure to them, without depriving them of the right to communicate directly with the S~cu~ty Council, then there can be no objection on the score of principle. But if the intention is to deprive the parties of the rigk: to communi- cate with the "Security Council until 'Chey have communicated with the Mediator and until the 'Mediator ha., stated bis attitude, then such a course of action would be wrong. 1 therefore ask for a clarification of your first statement regarding this question.

1 stated just now that the parties are not deprived of the right to make any complaint or application to the Security Council and that 1 would be pleased at any time to receive such complai!lts from them on any subject concerning that matter and to .put it up for consideration by the Security Council. That is what 1 said. Communicating with the Mediator does not mean that they are deprived .of the other right which is natural and~normal. 1 do not think that the matter is still vague. It is to be taken or understood as 1 have stated. We shall act accordingly and communicate the desire of the Mediator'to aIl Member and non,.member States except those who are parties to this dispute, with whom communication has been made before. We shall now consider the othet point on this subject, in connexion with which 1 believe the representative of the USSR wishes to submit a proposaI or to make a statement. IVlr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): The question of military. observers h?s already bcen discussed at previous meetings of the Security Council. The USSR delegation has raised the question of including a small group of USSR milita!)' observers arnong the observers to be placed at the disposaI of the Mediator in accordance with the Security Council resolution ,of 29 May. As you know, we have already recdved official confirmation from the representatives of the United States, France and Belgium that these States are sending their military observers to Palestine. They are, sending these observers in accordance with a request which they assert they have received from the Mediator. But, as 1 have repeatedly stated, the Security Council's resolution of' 29 May did nat empower the Mediator to make any such requests or to settle the question of the despatch of military observers. 1t is precisely for this reason that the USSR deIegation has pointed out the necessity of cIarifying the relevant paragraph of the Security Conncil resolution, which reads: "lmtmcts thè United Nations Mediator for Palestine in concert with the Truce Commission to supervise the observance of the ab;we provisions, and decides that they shan be provided with a sufficient number of military observers." Since the United Nations Mediator for Pales- .tille has not been empowered by the Security Couneil to settle this question independently, without the Security Council, the Council itself must settle it. The Security Council'must c1arify the aforementioned paragraph of its resolution of 29 May. Until the Security Council has taken such a decision, no country qan lawfully send its military observers to Palestine. Neitherthe United States, nor France, nor Belgium, nor any other country can do so, because there is no decision on which they could base their action. p l have already pointed out that no one will understand why the United States has the right to send its military observers to Palestine and the USSR has not. What justification is there for such a thesis? The same applies to France, Belgium .or any other country. It is evident that there are no legal grounds for the procedure which, according ta the official information available to the Security Council, is now being followed. The USSR delegation has aIready pointed out that the group of USSR observers would not be a large one. 1 cau informthe Security Council that the USSR intends to send five persons. This group, together with the observers from other countries, would carry out the appropriate functions in Palestine in .accordance with the Security Co:mcil's truce resolution. Can anyone' understand why the USSR cannot send five pel'''; sons, while the United States can send a party of twenty-one persons to Palestine? No one can understand such a situation, especial1y as the information available shows that the United States is sending not only military observers but even ships (likewise at the Mediator's request) and, if Press reports are correct, it is either sending or has already sent 0.1' intend's ta send even aircraft. It is aIl the more odd, therefore, ta hear any objections on the part of the official United States representative on the Security Council to the despatch of USSR observers ta Palestine. ou Il représentants rité teurs de l'URSS. Perhaps the policy of the United States differs from that of the USSR with regard ta the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine on the basis titude la Consequently, if we believe that the latest statements made by the official representatives of the United States Government regarding its support of the Jewish State are true, we :find it even more difficult ta understand why the United States Government should object, through its representatives on the Security Council, to the USSR sending ta Palestine a small group of USSR observers-:five persans, for instance. ls it possible for anyone ta understa~d this attitude of the United States Government? 1 repeat that we cannot in any circUl;nstances agree that one, two or three countries should be given the right ta send their military observers ta Palestine, while at the saine time the USSR is to b-.:. deprived of that right. The USSR is no less ~ntitled than any other country ta send its military observers ta Palestine; no less entitled than .the United States, for instance. 1 Vlish ta submit ta the Security Council the following draIt resolution, which should be regarded as a formal proposal: CCConsidering the necessity of providing the United Nations Mediator in Palestine with an appropriate number of military observers in accordance with the Security Council resolution of 29 May 1948, "1. To attach to the United Nations Medi- ator military observers from thiti.)' to. fifty persans. "2. .The military observers should be ap- pointed by Member States of the Security Coun- cil wishing to participate in the designation of such observers, exc1uding Syria." 1 request the Seeurity Council to discuss this proposal and 1 hope it will not abject ta the par- ticipation of a group of five USSR military observers, .along with the military observers of soine other countries, in carrying out the tasks connected with the Security CouDeil resolution of 29 May~

The draft resolution is now before the Council for discussion before voting. Since no representative has expressed a desire ta speak, 1 shall say a few woris .JI my capacity as the representative of Syria. In the opinidn of .the Syrian de1egation, the last two words of the Ml'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): In view of what you have said, Ml'. President, 1 think 1 am justified in assuming that you sbould have even less reason to object to this partieular phrase. Ml'. TARASENKO (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated trom Russian): As 1 pointed out at the last meeting, 1 am surprised at the attitude adopted by the United States representative in regard to the question of invïting USSR military observers. Obviously, the point at issue is not that the absence of a specifie clause in the resolution of 29 May gives anyone the formal right to argue that only the States that are members of the Truce Commission should be invited a.nd that there is no need to invite others. This is not the point at issue beeause there is no sueh clause in the resolution. No deeision at all has been taken on this question. It is a question that needs to be settled. The point at' issue is that the United States in the f1rst instanee-and aIso sorne other members of the Seeurity Couneil--'">ppose the very idea, the very principle, thât USSR military observers should be includ~d among the observers. l, personally, cannot understand this opposition. It is entirely unfounded, whether in regard ta the point of view adopted in the resolution itself, or in the matter of logic. Why is it that the United States, France and Belgiqm may send military observers to Palestine and other members of the Security Council may not? Merely because these tpree countries happen to have Consuls in Jerusalem? This is a purely accidental factor-and a very weak one. n cannot be a determining factor in this case. A legitimate question arises: is the Security Council interested in the most successful implementation of its resolution of' 29 Mayor not? Is the United States interested in a successful implementation of this resolution? If they are, then ,it is evidently essential ta provide for re; cruitment of the miIitary observers who would be most impartial and would best represent the point of view of the Security Council. If the military observers are ta represent oruy these countries, can we say that they will be the most representative of the Security Council's point of view? Certainly not. Why should we not, include observers frdm other countries, and in particular from the USSR, a country which has taken a firm position of principle in this In view of these considerations, 1 support the USSR proposal and insist that USSR military observers should be included in the group of military observers who are ta supervise the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 29 May. 'Mr. ARCE (Argentina) (translated from Spanish): If the proposa! made to us by the representative of the USSR had been submitted when we discussed the resolution that now has ta be implemented, 1 am sure that the Argentine delegation would have agreed; for there would have been no reason why we should not vote in favour of it, or why aIl the members of the .council should not have an equal right to send observers to assist the Mediator. But after the adoption of this resolution, the Mediator, in whom we aIl wish to place the fuUest confidence, .interfering with his work as little as possiblethis is the sense of the General Assembly's resolution-requests military observers from those countries he thought it advisable ,to select, and this changes the situation. And the situation is further ch.anged when the representative of the USSR raises what is evidently a political problem. As 1 understand it, .the right to send observers is not in question, ainee no one has denied this right ta countries that are members of the Security Council. On the other ha:d it is quite clear that the point at issue is that the Mediator in Palestine thought it advîsable to ask for militaryobservers from those countries that are members of the Truce Commission, and which are, as we kaûw, the countries having consuls at Jerusalem, and that he has aIso asked for them from his oVIn country which is not a member of the Security Council and has 1"'.0 Consul at Jerusalem. This means that the Mediator has chosen the course he thought best and we, 1 deliberately repeat, must respect the wishes of the Mediator and try to interfere as little as possible with the work entrusted to him in Palestine, if we do, not wish to put obstacles in his way for one political reason or another. From aU the speeches we have heard it ap- .pears that certain delegations are won!iering why we should not give ta other countries the same right as has. been given ta the United For these reasons Argentina, which is not interested in political disputes between great Powers-I am now referring specifically ta the . United Stat~ and the USSR-will abstain fram voting on this proposaI. .

As there are no fUMer speakers, 1 dclare the discussion closed, and the Security Council will now vote on the draft resolntion. 1 shall ask the Assistant Secretary-General to read the draft resolution submitted by the representative of the USSR. Mr. KERNO (Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Department) read the draft resolution [document S/841].

Having disposed of the second item of our 'l.l:renda for today, we shall now pass to the thi;..>. item.

The Rapporteur will now submit the report of his Committee to the Security Counc:il. Mr. NrsoT (Belgium), Rapporteur of the Committee of Experts (translated from French ) ~ 1 aill not the author of thiB report to the Security Council; it was prepared by Mr. Harry (Australia), who has since ceased to be a member of the .Committee of Experts. The report is being submitted by me because 1 happened to be Chairman of the Committee of Expèrts at the time of its adoption. It is an excellent and lucid. report, and 1 do not think thàt anything 1 might add to it would make it more so. 1 shall, however, be glad to give àny explanations the Security Council may desire.

The report; document S/642, has been distributed since 1,2 January 1948, which is approximately five months ago. 1 think all the members of the Security Council have read th' report thoroughly and carefully, so that we should now be able to discuss it.and give our opinion on it. It is very gratifying to note that at the end of the report a draft resolution is proposed by the Committee of Experts in order to facilitate the task of the Security Council. If every one agrees to this draft proposaI, which is on page 9 of the document, it may be adopted in that way, unless any representatives have any remarks or objections to make. Ml'. TARASENKO (Ukrainian Soviet Soeialist Republic) (translated trom Russian): 1 should like to offer a comment. Too little time has been allowed for the examination of the report, and 1 feel, therefore, that the Council should be given a littIe more time so that every member of the Security Couneil could study this report before we begin to discuss it. Ml'. ARCE (Argentina) (translated trom Spanish): 1 must say that l. had not the least idea that we were going to discuss this matter although it had been raised in January. Con- ! sequentIy, 1 am in complete agreement with the proposaI just made by the Ukrainian representative, to the effect that we should defer consideration of the matter, so that those of us who only recentIy became members of the Security Council and are therefore not familial' with aIl these problems, may be able to study them before giving our opinion. l wish to add that 1 did not actually say that 1 was not acquainted with the subject, because 1 have sorne knowledge of it; 1 said that 1 did not know, or even suspect, that we were going to discu~ this matter today.

1 believe it is correct that the agenda for each meeting of the 8ecurity Couneil should be weIl known to ail the members in sufficient time before the date of such' meeting. In this case, it was distributed only last Friday. Rule 10 of the provisional rules of'procedure of,the Security Council states: "Any item of the agenda of a meeting of the Security Council, consideration· of which has not been completed at that meeting, shall, unless the Security Council otherwise decides, automatically be inc1uded in the agenda of the next meeting." The next meeting of the Security Council is scheduled for tomorrow,at which time the Security Council will consider the Third Report of the Atomic Energy Commission. 1 believe this would be too early to consider the present report, because there· is also another document , which has been distributed-a report from the In the absence of objection, it is so ordered. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): The representative of the United States of America drew oUf attention just now to document S/632. The following resolution of the Trusteeship Council appears therein; reading: «Noting that ... «Resolves that a Committee of three, com- . posed of the President, and two other repre- sentatives of the Council to be appointed by him, be authorized to confer with the President or a similar Committee of the Security Council with a view to assuring that, before the Security Council makes a final decision on the arrange- ments to be made with regard ta the functions of the Trusteeship Council in respect of strategic areas under T~steeship in relation to the politi- cal, social, economic, and educational advance- ment of the inhabitants, the responsibilities of the Trusteeship Council be fully taken into account." 1 only wish to ask the President whether he feels that that is a good and useful preliminary procedure before the Security Council actually considers this question, and whether he would, if he agrees to that procedure, get in touch with .the President of the Trusteeship Council, either with the assistance of one member or two mem- bers of the Security Council, and meet him for a preliminary discussion on this question. 1t might perhaps facilitate the subsequent discussion of the question by the Security Council itself.

This question raised by the representative of the United Kingdom will be taken up, as far as l understand it, before the final decision. The Trusteeship Council stated in the same paper which has just been read: "Before the Security Council makes a final decision on the arrangements." The Security Council has not even reached a' preliminary decision. 1 thought that the report of the Committee of Experts should be studied 11rst in order to see to what extent the Security Council is to avail itse1f of the service and help of the Trusteeship Council. If the Security Council accepts this report, then there will be time to cbmmulJicate or convene with the Trusteeship Council in that respect. Therefore, 1 think the Security Council should first have a meeting on this subject and reach sorne decision or point on it in order to know to what extent it would avail itself of the service of the Tr.usteeship Council in this respect. MI'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 wish to say that the whole question should be postponcd. That is how 1 understood the proposals