S/PV.330 Security Council

1 do not think the members of the Security Council .will object if l invite the members of the Council to speak first and the special representatives later. Are there any objections? Mr. DE LA TOURNELLE (France) (translated fram French): ..Notwithstanding the procedure the President has adopted in inviting a· certain Government to participàte in this .discussion, 1 wish to state, on my Government's behalf, that it ~eserves its right to complete freedom of ac~ tion. It has not recognized. the State of Israel, and considers that an invitation to the repre~ Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French): My Government's position Î3 similar to that of the Governm~nt of the United Kingdom and France: It has, up to now, reserved its position as regards the possible recognition of the Government of Israel.

May l, as the representative of a member of tlle Security Council and not as President, state my Government's point of view on this question? 1 cannot understand the objections raised here, the. more so as we had a similar case during the discussion of the Indonesian question. At that time, we were faced with the question whether the representative of the Indonesian Republic should be invited as the representative of a definite State or simply as representativ~ of one of the opposing parties. In this case, 1 think 1 am following the example of my predecessor as President, Mr. El.Khouri, who forcefully demonstrated that the Indonesian Republic should be invited as a State. AlI the arguments used by Mr. El-Khouri. then are aIso applicable to the State of Israel in the present case. Therefore, as the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, 1 support the view that the Security Council should invite the representative of the State of Israel to sit at this table. . Mr. EL-KH<)uRI (Syria): Inasmuch as the President has quoted a previous formaI incident which took place in the Security Council with regard to the Republic of Indonesia, 1 wish to state that when 1 made that statement about Indonesia, 1 relied upon the Linggadjati Agreement [document 8/649, page 87J in which the Netherlands Government recognized the Republic> of Indonesia as a de facto Government exercising authority. Since the interested party, that is, the> Netherlands Government, recognized the State of Indonesia as de facto, independent and exercising authority, the Council had to

As the representative of the UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOClALIS'!' REPUBLIC, 1 regret 1 cannot agree. with Ml'. EI-Khouri's arguments. 1 have before me the te.xt of the verbatim record of Ml'. EI-KhourPs speech. 1 can read it out if necessary, but 1 would not like to take up the Security Councirs time with this matter. The position which Ml'. EI-KhouTÏ defended was e."actly the same as mine. _Just as the Ukrainian delegation is now supporting the invitation to be ex.tended to the State of Israel, so did Ml'. EI-Khouri-using almost exactly the same aJ.'guments-defend his position with regard to the invitation of Indonesia. If necessary, 1 shall quote bis statement in the course of the discussion. 1 must point ont here that the analogy which Ml'. El-Khouri is trying te draw is unfounded. Mtif-f all, Indon~ia did once form part of the Netllerlands colonial empire; but we know that the Jews never formed part of Syria, nor of any other Arab State such as Egypt. From that point nf view, therefore, u1ere are even more reasons to invite the State of Israel than. there were in respect of Indonesia. In the second place, 1 tbink Ml'. EI-Khouri must agree that we have before us in this connexion the Çenera1 Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947: wbich has not been revoked. by the Special S~on-of the General Assembly which metfrom 16 April until 14 May of this year. The General Assembly's resolution remains in force and provides for the creation of the independent State of Israel. ThirdIy and lastly, we must take into account the faet that the State of Israel was created at the moment of the expiration of the United Kingdom Mandate and was recognized by a number of States, includirrg the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of Ameri~ and others. Consequently, we cannot deny tlüs right to the State of Israel, even from the point of viC'v of the de facto situation. ~fr. TSL-\..."lG (China): In changing the title of the representative of the Jewish Agency, the PTL"Sident aeted without authorization from the Security Council. It was an individual act on bis part. Therefore, my delegation cannot assign any validity or significance ta that new title. Mahmoud Bey FAWZI (Egypt): 1 did not understand exactly what the President meant by the representatives of the parties when he referred to the representative of Egypt. That is up to him to explain, and 1 shall not dwell on ihis point. In any case, in regard to the point which we now have before us, 1 wanted ta say practically the same as every representative, with the exception of the President, has said upon it and, in particular, 1 subscribe to what the representatives of Syria ·and China have said. 1 want ta add that my position is not only that the way in which the President has invited the representative of the Jews ta sit at this table dl)es not bind anyone or create a precedent: 1 must also earnestly express the hope that such terminology will not be used any longer, either by the Preflident of the Security Council, or by the Medh".or, or by anyone who speaks in the name of the United Nations rather than in his Government's name, or in his own. sentants l'expliquer, 1 actuellement, sentants ment l'Agence précédent, ferme sera du par des vétille, l'importance tionale. tion certains toute Perhaps some people might think this is a matter of no consequence, or that it is of n.o importance, but every member knows the great importance of precedents in international matters. We cannat allow things to be taken as a precedent or to be repeated; that is dangerous, and it is not correct in any way. With the President's· permission, 1 want most respectfully to submit that his arguments against what has been said by everyone who spoke here, with the exception of himself, are, at most, seemingly persuasive, but they are really not at aIl convincing. When he spoke as President of the Security Council, he spoke entirely in the name of the Security Council, yet here there are oruy three Governments which have recognized a de t'acto authority as the GoverIÙnent of some part of Palestine. This is very vague, and 1 think that if the President persists in inspiring such innowl.tions, this willonly help to make 'confusion more confused. 1 again most earnestly and mostrespectfully hope that this will not be repeated. déclarer, les mée persuasifs, vaincants. en or, reconnu ment est que, innovations la respectueusement duira Now 1 shouId Iike to dwell very briefly on one point. The President said that he would allow first the members of the SecuJity Council to speak, and then the others who are not members. First· of aIl, the mIes of procedure do not. say any such thing. There isrule 37 which gives representatives of States which are not members of the Security Council the right to participate, when they.are invited, in the discussions of the Council in a matter concerning them; the only limitation is that they will have. no right to vote. AIso they cannat present proposaIs, in that their proposaIs will not be voted upon except when they are submitted by a member of the Security mots. parole puis bres. ment. Etats sécurité au~ concerne, pas mettre positions Conseil General McNAUGHTON (Canada): The Canadian Government has always considered that a representative of the Jewish population of Palestine should be present at aIl discu:lsions which take place on the Palestine problem in' the United Nations, and this attitude has been followed consistently through two special sessions of the General Assembly, at a regular session of the General Assembly, and in the Security Council, where 1 had the priVilege, as President, of inviting the representatives of the Jewish Agency to sit at this table. The Canadian dele- .gation now has no desire to prevent the Jewish representative frOID appearing under a designation which will best enable him to fulfil bis function of representing the Jewish people, but, on the other hand, aIl proceedings of the Security Council have been based on the understanding that the truce proposaIs and the nego:iations arising out of them would in no way prejudice the politicaI situation in Palestine, pending particularly the outcome of the efforts of the Mediator. The nature of the discussion which has taken place in this Council this morning has indicated that a decision taken in present circumstances cannot possibly avoid influencing the political situation, and the Canadian delegation does not feel that it can, at the moment, consistently support any action which would have this unfortunate resuIt. The analogy with the Indonesian case, which the President has raise~' is unfortunately in our opinion not correct, sin.ce, on that occasion, the particular point at issue this morning was not discussed and politica1 consequences did not flow from the action which was then taken. Mr. JESSUP (United States of America): 1 had not thought to intervene in this dehate, because it seems to me that we are taking perhaps too much time on a question which could be disposed of very sirnply. 1 think that everyone is aware of the fact that the actual name under which the Jewish authorities in Palestine operate and exist is that of the State of Israel and the Pî'ùvisional Government of Israel representing the State of Israel. As everyone is also aware, my Govemment has recognized the State of Israel. The question before the Security Council is one of the designation of those who are to be represented, and that of their representative. It seems to me that the value of the precedent cîted by the President is grt:;at and that there has been a slight misunderstanding on that point. As 1 see it, the importance of the precedent in the Indoneuian case is that an invitation to take a seat at this table does not involve recognition on the part of the States represented on the Security Council. Therefore, I fully recognize the right of the representatives of the various States constituting the Securhy Council to make it clear that they are still following that precedent and that, by sitting at the table with the represeI;ltative of the State of Israel, they are Dot committing their Governrnents to the recognition of that State. That would apply in. any situG',tion. In other words, this question does not at al' ;nvolve the problem of recognition. It seerus to me to be perfectly appropriate for rnembers of the Security Council to state, as they have stated, that no recognition is involved. But 1 think that the question of avoiding the actual terminology, in spite of the position of some' other States represented here-which we aIl have weIl in mind-involves us in unnecessary complications and creates a situation which . in reality does not exist. Therefore it seems to me that the action suggested by the President, and followed by him in asking the representative of the State of Israel to sit at the table, is a simple way of dealing with a factual situation which involvfg no legal consequences in terms of recognition. Mr. MUNOZ (Argentina) (translated trom Spanish): This discussion of'procedure willlead us nowhere. The Council has been convened in arder to discuss the prolongation of the truce ~ Palestine, and in the opinion of my delegatIon, it should undertake irnmediate1y the consideration of tbis question.

We are now coming ta the end of our discussion, but the representative of the State of Israel has asked ta speak. Mr. EBAN (Israel): With the President's permission, 1 would postpone my remarks until the substance of this morning's discussion if! approached-namely, the cable addressed by the Mediator ta the Security Council [document S/865]. The PRESIDÈNT (translated tram Russian): 1 recognize the representative of Egypt. However, 1 hope·that he is not going ta make a lengthy speech, as we should like ta terminate our discussion of this aspect of the question. Mahmoud Bey FAWZI (Egypt): 1 shall try· ta co-operate and not speak for tao long a time. However, 1 hope that the brevity of my remarks will not be taken as a measure of the feeling of resentment which 1 have at this persistence in instilling into the discussions in the Security Couneil something which cannat be a contribution ta the success of these discussions-something which is very prejudicial to the interests and to the rights of my country. It is very cIear that the use by the President of the terminology which he employed in connexion with inviting the Jewish representative ta the S~curity Council table-and, again, in inviting him ta speak-is against the will and against the positions of eight out of the eleven members represented in the Security Cauneil. 1 l'epeat: only three representatives here represent countries which have recognized the de facto GovernmC1it of part of Palestine. 1 cannot at aIl understand this persistence, while the President is speaking in the name of the Security Council, in using terminnlogy which is contrary ta the desire of eight members of the Security Council, not ta speak of the others who are not members of the Council but Members--and equal Members-of the United Nations. 1 want ta go on record as most energetically objecting ta the continuance of the use of this terminology.

That is the full right of the representative of Egypt, but my right as President is ta make a ruling, and the Security Council will deeide whether the President's ruling was correct or not. 1 am putting this question ta the vote. Those in favour of the President's proposaI will please l'aise their hands. Ml'. GROMYKO (Vmon of SDviet Soeiamt Republics) (translated from Russian): It seems to me that the correct way ta proceed would be

Will all those against the President's ruling please raise their hands?

In accordance with rule 30 of our rules of procedure, 1 declare that sinee only five votes were cast against the President's ruling, 1 consider it to rem.ain in force. The other statements will appear in the record. We shall now proceed to the substance of the matter. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 think it would be desirable if, in the discussion of the substance of the matter, the representatives of the parties concerned shoul9 be permitted to speak first. This would enable them, in the first place, to infonn the Security Couneil how the truce provided for in an earlier resolution of Ml'. EBAN (Israel): 1 think it will be sufficient at this point if 1 inform the Council of the stage of the ncgotiations which have taken place between the Mediator and the Provisional Government of Israel. The Mediator has addressed, specifically and e.xplicit1y to the Provisional Government of Israel, a question whether, on the expiration of the truce period, it would agree ta a prolongation of that truce under such Il time lim:it and' such conditions as might be decided upon in consultation with the parties concerned. 1 now learn that the Provisional Government of Israel has given its reply to the Mediator which will, therefore, presumahlv be communicated to the Securitv Council in' due course. 1 think it would b~ more in accordance ,vith the procedure of the Security Council if the Mediator's conveyance of that message were awaited. Jamal Bey HUSSEINI (Arab Higher Committee): 1 wanted only to. refer to this new denomination of the Jewish Agency. For sorne, probably, it is not so important, but ta us it is of essential and vital importance. 1 was not going ta say anything until this question had been decided upon. Now it r.eems that the President has decided to continue using the denomination. In that case, with all respect to the President and ta the Security Council, 1 believe that we cannot assist in these deliberations as long as that denomination .is being used by the Chair. lamaI Bey Husseini~ representative of the Arab Higher Commit' >e~ thereupon. with-drew. Ml'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (tmnslated from Russian): We have come to the discussion of the substance of this matter. 1 feel the other members of the CounciI must share my wish that we should receive information about the way the truce has operated in Pale,;-tine, about its success or failure. That is essential if we are to come to the right decision on the renewal of the truce in accordance with the Mediator's proposal to the Security Council. For reasons not quite clear to me, however, neither of the parties concerned wishes ta give such information ta the Council; nor is any detailed information available from the Mediator. We aU know that he has furnished the Council with such information only from time ta time, by means of short te1egrams addressed to the President of the Council. As fol' the parties concemed, they have 80 far not Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : l wish to suggest that it might not be so difficult for the Security Council ta take a decision on this matter, as has been suggested by the representative of the USSR. It might be, as he suggests, interesting-possibly even useful-to hear statements from both parties indicating their opinion of the manner in, which the truce has worked, its efficacy, and so on. But 1 do rather fear that if we followed that course, we should listen to long, and probably detailed, and -1 am afraid-almost certainly conflicting statements from the two parties, and 1 nm not quite sure that that would really help us to make up our minds on this really rather simple and straightforward question. We have a United Nations Mediator on the spot, and hitherto wc have-as 1 think, with grcat succcss-left a great deal ta his discretion and trusted him to do the best that he could in the cÏrcumstances. Yesterday we had before us a cablegram [document 8/865] from the Mediator, and 1 would quote again the words which he uses in the last paragraph of that message. He says: ". . . in the interest of a peaceful setdement of the problem by means of patient and tolerant effort and reciproca:l good will, 1 ask the United Nations, as the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, ta urgently appeal to the interested parties ta accept in principle the prolongation of the truce ..." Now, it seems to me-and 1 believe that it must seem to the Prt.;sident and to the members of the Security Council-that we cannot ignore tl}.at appeal. The Mediator on the spot has stated very definitely his opinion that it js desirable to pralong the truce in arder ta give a possibility for the parties to get together and make some progress, at least, towards an ultimate peaceful settlement acceptable to bath. 1 must aIso again remind the Security Council that time is [Jetting very short and that the existing truce is .ùe to expire orl ~riday morning. Today is Wednesday. Therefort:, 1 üo hope that the Security Council will trust the Mediator, accept his view of the situation, do what he asks, support him, and give him full authority ta use to the utmost the Mr. JESSUP (United States of Amèrica): The delegation of the United States supports very warmly the adoption of the proposaI submitted by the representative of the United Kingdom, which is before us in document S/867. We hope that the Security Council will recognize the urgent nature of the appeal re-' ferred to ,in that proposaI. In his remarks just concluded, the repTesentative of the United Kingdom has stressed that aspect of the situation. ln our opinion the problem is not difficult in respect' of the action which the Security Council is DOW called upon to take. The whole Palestine question is clearly not before us for discussion at this time. We have a simple issue. Is the Security Council in favour of continuing the truce? 1 be1ieve that, from the standpoint of the Security Council and of the United Nations, a truce per se is a success. A truce indicates a cessation of conflict, and surely the purpose of the United Nations is to bring about cessation of conflîct when conflict has once broken out. If the SecurityCouncil views this question from the point of view of the alternatives, surely the answer is simple. The alternatives are eithel' the prolongation of the truce or war. The third possibility is not before us at this time. The third possibility would be that a·final solution of the Palestine qu~tion might be arrived at before the termination of the truce on Friday of this week. Unhappily, we know that that cannot take place. Therefore, we are faced with these sinlple alternatives: truce or war. 1 cannot be1ieve that any member of the Security Council can hesita.te for a moment in choosing between those two alternatives. Once we have reached a simple decision of placing the strong support of the Security Council .behind. the prolongation of. the truce, then surely there are many issues in connexion with the Palestine question which may very weIl engage the attention of the Council. There is no desire, 1 am sure, on anyone's part, to cut off in·any way the fullest debate upon any issue of the Palestine question. We shall want to hear fully from the representatives of the parties and we shall want to hèar fully from aIl the members of the Security Council 'Vho wish to express themselves on this question. But at the moment we have an li!'gent appeal from the Mediator and we bave a very short time in which ta act. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): If the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom do not wish to take part in the discussion of this question, that is their own affair. They can sit in silence and refrain from participation in the discussion. Those members of the Security Council, on the other hand, who deem it necessary to state their views on the Mediator's proposaI, have the full right to do so. .As far as the USSR delegation is concerned, it has something to sayon the matter. However, it would, as 1 have already pointed out, like to ascertain from the parties how successfully the truce has operated in Palestine. We have not sufficient information to enable us to form a complete picture of the way' in which. the Security Council's resolution on the establishment of a truce [document S/801J has been implemented. For sorne reason, the parties concemed prefer not ta mention this at the Security Council meetings; that is up ta them. If no one is going to refer to the substance of the question, the USSR delegation will touch upon certain aspects of the question of the truce. 1 wish ta draw the Council's attention in particular to the fact that reports of several violations of the truce have been published in the Press of sorne countries. The Council does not know how far these reports correspond ta the truth, as no one has fumished it with any detailed and precise information on the subject. Moreover, we know .that during the truce certain persons concocted fresh plans on the Palestine question, and, what is more, drew up a proposaI based on those plans. It is no accident that othis proposal was prepared during the actual period of the truce, when the struggle between the Jews and Arabs had slackened and . when no open armed fighting was taking place. That is another fact we cannat ignore. The representative of the United Kingdom suggests we should act blindly. He submits a resolution and we are expected ta raise "r hands ~romptIy and vote in its favour. 1 for o..~ do not wish ta vote in favour of that resolution before the situation has been cleared up and before 1 have obtained information on the implementation of the Council's previous resolution. This is surely a legitimate request. If no one wishes ta comply with it, we shall try ta find out for ourselves, ta the best of our ability. ~hance to speak. 1 wish only to refer now ta the document which was distributed ta the Security Council this morning, document S/868. This is a paper submitted by the Syrian Government to the United States Government listing a violation by the United States Government of the truce agreement and of the resolutian of the Security Council of 29 May [document S/80J], of which the first paragraph states: ((Desiring to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Palestine without prejudice ta the rights, daims and position of either Arabs or Jews." The last paragraph of this resolution states: CCCalls upon all Governments to take aH possible steps to assist in the implementation of this resolution." ln the meantime, during the truce period the United StateS Government decided to send a diplomatic representative to the Jewish State in Palestine and to exchange diplomatic relations with it. The Arabs are questioning whether this act on the part of the United States does or does not prejudice the position of both parties during the truce period. It is quite c1ear, and everybody would sa understand, that since, as the representative of Canada has today said, no political action should be taken pending the results of the efforts of the Mediator, such an act during the truce period is considered by the Arabs as a violation of the truce. Though they were requested to do all in their power for tlle implementation of the truce agreement, they have taken this step which has just the opposite effect, they have strengthened one side by putting there a represe.ntative of the United States Government as a diplomatic representative-Ambassador or Minister, 1 do not know in what capacity they sent him. That is not impartiality and it is not keeping both parties on the same footing. For this reason, we consider that sorne Governments do not care much to help in the implementation of the truce agreement. If the taking of such steps is to continue, then 1 do not think that the prolongation of the truce period would he of great use. It was decided first that the truce period should last for four weeks, and this period will be at an end in a few days. If there is to be profit in and respect for the truce, and if one side is not .to be helped or strengthened against the other--as has happened during this truce period on Many instances which 1 shall not mention now, but with which 1 shaH deal later--I do not know how the United States can explain or justify the act which it has committed during this truceperiod. 1 know that the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has certain objections to this draft resolution and maintains we have no information on the tmce, either from the Mediator or the parties concerned. 1 am surptised by this assertion, as a whole paragraph of document S/865, communicated to us by the Mediator, is devoted to the manner in which the tmce has been operating. The Mediator specifically states: objections que trêve, que car qui mentionne, Médiateur "On the whole, the tmce h~ worked well. There have been complaints from both sides as to the alleged violations of the terms of the truce agreement. There have been instances of violation, but an fighting on a major scale has been stopped, and it can be said quite confidently that the tmee has worked weIl, and by 9 July 1948, neither State will have gained any significant military advantage from its application." Des quant de tion, on respectée aucun tage militaire appréciable." 1 consider, therefore, that we have before us an official text. Of course, the Security Council is free to consider the information sent it by the Mediator as null and void. But that would mean utter confusion and we could do no further work here. sence Conseil et teur l'anarchie possible ici. 1 also agree that when we study the conditions in which the tmce operated, after the adoption of the text submitted by the United Kingdom, a di'lcussion might usefuny be held in the Security Council. There would then be no objection to the Council taking such decisions as if deémed fit, andwhich might improve the operation of the tmce. But 1 would repeat, as far as the principle is concerned, it is most urgent that the Council should shoulder its responsibilities. s'engager lorsque, ayant dans s'opposerait, prenne et cette Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist RepubIics) (translated trom Russian): 1 have aIready pointed out that the USSR delegation wishes to make a statement on this question, but it is getting late-five minutes past oneand it looks as if 1 shaH have to make that statement at our next meeting. Why does the representative of France think that 1 object to the United Kingdom resolution? Everyone knows 1 said nothing of the sort. 1 have not referred to the United Kingdom resolution as far as its substance is concerned. 1 only objeeted ta the United Kingdom representative's suggestion that the question should be voted on quickly and without discussion. 1 said we should first obtain information and aseertain the facts by h.earing, at any rate, both the interest~d parties listes .devrai, The representative of France has expressed " surpr.lSe about my remarkthat the Security Council does not have at its disposaI circumstantial information on the way in which the Pale<:&1~ truce was implemented. By way of argument, he pointed out that a whole paragraph in· the Mediator's communication is devoted to the results of the truce~ Surely it is ridiculous to assert that these results can be set forth in a single paragraph. We must have sorne modicum of information on the way in which the truee was implemented. Without it we should be taking decisions in the dark. If other representatives on the Council like to vote blindly for or against any given proposaI, that is their affair, but l, as the representative of the USSR, have my own opinion on this matter and 1 shall raise my hand in favour of any given proposaI deliberately and not automatically. Mr. ]ESSUP (United States of America): Of course, therepresentative of the USSR, like any other representative here, will follow his conscience and his instructions in determining bis vote on any particular question which ~ proposed. 1 9,0 feel, in view of the urgency of this matter, which has been stated severaI times, that the other members of the Security Council would appreciate it if the representative of t!Ie USSR would let us know what these points are in bis mind which lead him to question the dçsirability of" encouraging the parties to continue with the truee. If hë is unwilling to state them before lunch-as he was unwilling to state them yesterday afternoon [329th meetingJ-I assume that, in accordance with "bis suggestion yesterday, we would have two meetings on the Palestine question today, and the Security Council could reassemble promptly after lunch -1 would hope at 2.30-in order that we may proeeed with tbis matter and reach a decision on the resolution before us, before it is toolate.

If the members of the Security Conncil feel we should hold. a meeting this afternoon, it can of course be arranged. 1 personally think that the questions which will be raised are too important and too grave ta be dealt with in a matter of two or three hours. It would bebetter to devote a whole day to them. We have wasted time today on various discussions on procedure, with tJie result that we h.ave failed to deal with those questions on which the Security Council must pronounee its opinion. The question of the truee is not merely a military one; it has important and complex .political aspects, and we shall have to discuss these as well. We have various doéuments for that purpose. Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 would much prefer that the Security Council should meet this afternoon and, if necessary, sit until a very late hour. Je midi une heure avancée.

1 am also prepared tG go on with this meeting for some time. tinuer 1 just want to make a remark about the time of the meeting. 1 suggest we should meet at 3 p.m. au notre Sir Ale..xander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : If the President calls the meeting for 3 p.m., 1 hope he will appeal to all of our colleagues to he prompt. As the President himse1f has said, this is going to take a long time and if we do not actually get to work before 3.30, we shaH he here rather late. Therefore, if the meeting is going to be he1d at 3 p.m., we should aIl try to be punctual. la demandera Comme débat à jusqu'à river tion

1 have noted the United Kingdom representative's staœment. The meeting rose at 1.15 p.m. TROIS-CENT-TRENTE THREE HUNDRED AND TH;RTY-FIRST MEETING Held at Lake Success, New York, on Wednesday, 7 ]uly 1948, at 3 p.m. Preside.nt: Mr. D. MANUILSKY (Ykrainian Soviet Socialist Republic). Argentine, France, d'Ukraine, soviétiques, rique. Present: Th~ representatives of the following countries: Argentina, Be1gium, Canada, China, . Colombia, France, Syria, Ukrainian Soviet Social.ist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America. The agenda was that of the 330th meeting (document S/ Agenda 330). 161. Continuation of the discussion on th~ Pal.estine question listes nant Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (trarislated from Russian):· When discussing the possibility of extending the truce