S/PV.712 Security Council

We of the delegation of China deliberately suspended our judgement on every aspect of the dispute until the facts were in. Now the facts are in. We have had the facts presented to us by a number of speakers in the Council. Above all, we have had the objective and authoritative report of General Burns, Chief of Staff of the United Nations Troce Supervision Organization [8/3516 and Add. 1]. 2. The attack on Syria made by the armed forces of Israel on the night of 11 to 12 December 1955 was an unjustified attack-unjustified either by law or even by military or political necessity. That attack should be condemned. My delegation joins with other delegations in condemning that attack as a flagrant violation of the Council resolution of 15 July 1948 [8/902], of the General Armistice Agreement bet'.veen Israel and Syria1 and of Israel's obligations !! 1 l ~ 11 4-. 1 have studied the draft resolution presented to us by the delegations of France, the United Kingdom and the United States [8/3530 and COTT. 1]. On the whole, it meets with the agreement and support of my delegation. 1 notice, however, that this draft resolution bas omitted any provision for compensation to the Syrian families for 1088 of life, health and property. 1 think that that omission is a defect in the joint cIraft resolution. Because of this omission, the draft does 'ot satisfy my sense of justice. 1 should like to admit that what 1 call my "sense of justice" is more a matter of feeling based on tradition and not on cold reasoning, and 1 would also admit the practical difficulties in arranging for compensation. The Joss of property could he assessed with a reasonable degree of accuracy. What value we could put on life and limb is, of course, a very difficult matter. But in spite of the difficulties in arranging for compensation, 1 still fcel that it is politically wise for the Security Council to provide for some compensation. 5. The three-Power (lraft resolution includes a clear, and 1 will say strong, condemnation of this Israel armed attack on Syria. It also include~ a strong waming to Israel not to r:>peat such action. Gondemnation and warning are in fact, to my mind, the most important features of the draft, but unfortunately condemnation and warning have ,"0 human mea.ning to the Syrian viIlagers who have suffered loss of life and property. The draft resolution does not repair their losses or assuage their feelings. I think that it is politically wise for the United Nations to pay some attention to the human beings who have been victimized through no fault of their own. 7. The demarcation Hne around Israel is, of course, a very important feature. It is there to prevent anned conflict, but, 1 submit, it is not there to prevent the natural flow of human feelings from one side of the line to the other. If the United Nations can make the people on one side of the line feel that the people on the other side of the line are, after aIl, people just as human as themselves, we shaH be promoting the beginning, at least, of a solution of the Palestine problem. Mter being involved in the Palestine dispute since the very beginning, 1 have the feeling that the conflict in emotions in the Middle East is, in fact, much bigger, much more important, than the conflict over materia! interests. ", 8. Now, in view of the difficulties involved in arranging for compensation, 1 fee! $at the ideal solution would he for Israel to make Pl. voluntary offer of compensation. Such an offer on the part of Israel would be an act of statesmanlike imagination; and, with all respect to Israel and its Government, ! should like to remark that it appears to me that the most i.-nportant defect in the policy of Israel is exactly in that direction: lack of imagination in dealing with its Arab neighbours. If such a voluntary offer should not be forthcoming, then 1 feel that the Security Council should itself inc1ude in the draft resolution provision for compensation. The details of such compensation should he left to General Burns. 9. That is how my delegation feels in regard to this present dispute and in regard to the three-Power draft resolution that is before us.

The problem before the Security Council is a grave one, affecting an area which at the present time is perhaps the most tense and troubled area in the world. The facts regarding the Lake Tiberias incident on the night of 11 to 12 December 1955, when 56 Syrians lost their lives following a premeditated assauit by Israel, are covered in the two reports submitted by Major General Burns, Chief of Still of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization [S/3516 and Add.1]. The Australian delegation believes that General Burns deserves the Council's commendation for his concise, frank and speedy reports upon the incident, and we also desire to take this opportunity to express our sympathy with the families that have suffered such grievous losses. ~ttack and carrying it out with ruthless violence. MOl'rover, we are concerned over the fact that such a prepared military action could only have becn undertaken in clrcumstanœs that pennitted a prior calculadon of the likely reaction of the members of the Security Goundl, and therefore involves an element of contempt for the Annistice Agreement and for the United Nations. 1 am sure that the representative of Israel wîu appreciate how painful it is for me to have te e!Jetlk in this way. 12, An appeal to foree in such a situation as exists in the Lake Tiberias region cannot contribute to the removal of the friction thit lies behind the various inddents of recent date, but C2.n only augment the ~:\.;sting tension and create further distrust. Even more important is the l'ver-present danger that rct.î.liatory military action of this kind may expand into Burns' first report, in which it is stated: .. Thel"e is, however, a risk in such retaliatory action, ok, îhat the attackers may not he able to limit the extent of the operation to that planned. Suc." actions may 'weIl produce a violent reaction by the forces of the attacked country, and what had bren conceived as a limited raid develops into full-scale hostilities. In the present atmosphere of tension and military activity, this possibility must he faced." (S/3516, para. 30). 13. '1he Austraiian deiegation therefore fully supportS the position adopœd by other members of the Council in ccmdemning Israel for this attack, and there is no doubt in our minds that the Security Council must he prepared to consider further action if its authority is subjected to further challenge of this kind. H. Wbile the existence of provocation would not excuse the Israel action, it must he recognized that in the 1ast analy5Ïs the explanation of such incidents is ta he found in a situation that goes far beyond the friction over Lake Tiberias. which bas led to many disputes beiœ broW!ht before the Mixed Armistice cŒnmission. - Neither side bas shown in this area any scrupulous regard for the Armistice Agreement or anj" strong detr:...-mÏnation to reduce lcoC<ll tension. In faet. although each side bas submitted cowplaints to the Mixed Armi~ce Commission, this machinery bas large1y fallen ioto disuse because neither party seems prepared to submit to a peaceful settlement of the disputes between them. 16. The Australian delegation believes that it is essential for both parties to uphold the Armistice Agreement, and that violations by either side cannot be condoned. 17. While the responsibility for the Lake Tiberias incident now before the Security Council lies unquestionably with Israel, the Australian delegation considers it essential that a new approach should he made by the parties to the problem of reducing friction in this area. Wc therefore cllnsidcr it appropriate that the Conncil, in considering the terms of the Tf'sol\ltion to be adopted, should not only censure Isra.el for its action on Lake Tiberias, but should also place the incident in proper pt:'1pective and point the way to the alleviation. of the underJying tension -rough the use by both parties of existing UnitedNati~ns machinery. ' , 18. However, 1 should like to reserve the right of my delcgation to speak again on the actual text of the proposaIs before the Security Couneil.

The Cuban delagation proposes to make a few general remarks on the serious and difficult matter now before the Couneil. 2û. As we had no opportunity of sayîng this earlier, when Cuba was not a member of the Counci!, we now wish to state that we deplore the tragic incident which took place on the night of 11 to 12 December 1955, and in which a considerable number of Syrian nationals lost their lives. We wish to expreS!; now, in this high fomm, our condolences to the people and Government of Syria. 21. My delegation deplores this incident aIl the more because the resort to force, except in self-defence, mns counter to one of the principles of the United Nations Charter and, in the specifie case with which we are concerned, constitutes a violation of the General Armistice Agreement concluded between Syria and Israel. My delegation also deplores the ineident because it bas increased the tension prevailing in the area and rendered a peaceful understanding even more difficult of achievement. Lastiy, it deplores the incident because it affects two States with which Cuba feels bound by equal ties of fricndship and which it would wish to see 23. General Burns' repDrt states that interference by Syria with Israel's rights on Lake Tiberias has fro:n time to timc led to violation by Syria of the Annistice Agreement. .L~ow, in the case before us, we lear:'. from the report that the action camed out on the night of 12 December was also the result of provocation but that Israel's reprisaIs were out of aIl proportion to the provocation, and entirdy without justification. 24. However wc look at it, this tragic incident, though on a larger scale, is just another in the long series which has occurred in this area. 25. The Security Conncil \vhl : ....ve tO'''ke steps to prevent we recurrence of such incidents, wl1Ïch are liable to leaè to a state of war, with unforeseeable consequences for world peace. The Security Council must also take steps to facilitate the restoration oi peaceful relations in the area. 26. The resolution which the Council adopts must he sufficiently objective, well-considered and constructive to pave the way to a peaceful ~ettlement. My delegation therefore feels that we should give special attention to General Burns' suggestions, which we regard as offering a reasonable basis for agreement between Syrïa and IsraeL We must censure Isxael's attack, even though we know from previous experience that censure bears no fruit. Incidents have continued to occur. Furthennore, whiie a solemn anà emphatic war'ling to Israel might have some effect, it might also tend to encourage acts of provocation by the other side, and steps must he taken to prevent this. We consider that the machinery of the Mixed Armistice Commission must he vlade to function so that peaceful solutions may he anived at by negotiation in accorclance with the provisions of the Annistice Agreement. 27. In paragraph 10 of the supplement to this report, General Burns states that, without prejudice to the rights, daims and positions of either party, a gentleman's agreement could he reached according to which Israel police boats would not come doser than a certain distance from the shore, in order thattheir movements might not give the Syrïans any grounds for fearing aggressive action. 29. The draft resolution presented by the Soviet Union [S/ 3~28] contains a paragraph concerning the paymcnt by Israel of adequate comp~nsation. Greatly as we sympathize with this provision ,and the principJe underlying it, my delegation must at this point assodate ,itself with the statements made at the 710th and 711th meetings by the àdegations of France and Belgium. 30. This is a difficult and highly complex problem, with which a judicial body wouZd he more competent to deaI. However, as the United States representative has suggested [7IOth meetinf1 this matter might he given study in the fut~re; and now-if we have understood correctly-the representative of China has called upon Israel to agree to pay compensati(,n voluntarily. If Israel accepted this suggestion, we feel that such a gesture would create a favourab!e cIimate for the solution of this problem. 31. The Cuban delegation is confident that the Council's discussion will produce the best approach ta a peaceful solution, and my delegation will support such an approach.

l wDuld request the Council to aHow me to speak now on behalf of the delegation of PERU. 1 shaH do so al! briefly and impartially as possible. The facts brought ta the attention of the Security Council :\re set out clearly, objectively and in detail in General Burns' report, and have been fully discussed by the members of the Council This fact makes the task of the PeiUvian delegation easier. 33. It is gratifying and pleasing to note that unanimous agreement is emerging on certain issues. The first of these is the condemnation of the attack of 11 December as a flagrant violation of the cease-fire, the armistice and IsraeI's obligations under the Charter. The second issue on which there also appears to he unanimous agreement, as ?Day be seen not only from the wording of the two drah ,solutions before the Council, but also from the staten.eLts that have been made, is the warning which must be given to Israel with regard tü the measures to be taki~n to preserve the peace. 34. The Peruvian deleg ltion considers the fonn of general warning oontained in the three-Power draft resolution [S/3530 and Gorr.1] to he the more sure and the more appropriate. There also seems to be agreement, although this point does not appear in the Soviet Union draft resolution [S/3528], on the need to sanction with the full authority o~ the Council the steps which General Burns has very properly taken and to request him to continue to take such steps, a need which is of great importance in my opinion 35. It is clear that the agreement on these three fundamental issues facilitates the Council's task. 1 must also refer to certain facts which may have been the subject, not of an actual dispute, but of vaI).n,3' shades of opinion. The incidents at Lake Tiberias ""yhich occurred before the attack of Il December have been brought to the Council's attention by the ISl"i\d delegation, and General Burns also refers to them. The Peruvian delegation eonsiders that these incidents cannot be regarded as falHng within the Council's jurisdiction bccause, by their nature, they fall within the competence of the Mixed Armistice Commission rather than that of the Couneil. Moreover, General Burns gave a reason in this connexion: the disproportion between the nature and importance of those incidents and the nature and seriousness of ~':.c ",;~~':.k. 36. The Couneil has, of course, rejected the concept of retaliation. The Peruvian position in this respect is clear, not solely because of the disproportion, a criterion which might have heen applied to retaliation when retaliation was recognized under the old international law, but because during this discussion the Peruvian dc::legation has been anxious, most of an when its opinion favoured lsraei, to have it cleady established that certain concepts, such as rights of belligerency, neutrality and retaliation, which used to h"ve meaning and respectability under the old internatioual law, no longer have them, and cannot have them, in the law established by the United Nations Charter. The Pemvian delegation adopts this position in a completely objective spirit, strengthened by its own thesis that the concept of belligerency could not be applied in a case in order to produce a solution favourable to Israel. 37. There is another point which also merits our serious consideration. The Syrian delegation has pointed out-and severaI represent:&tives here have recalled the fact-that Syria, after the attack, instead of resorting to force, exercised restraint and waited until it could exercise its right by filing a complaint with the Security Couneil. 1 do not think the Council can do less than note this legally correct attitude and e"'pre55, ;1 orJy through the speeches of representatives, its app,eciation of Syria's stand, in the same way as the Peruvian delegation expresses its sympathy for the victims of this attack. 38. It is plain that if, instead of having lawful recourse to the Couneil, Syria had allowed events to take thein course of conflict and violence, we should he faced, not with the incident of limited scope that actually occured, but with a very 40. Once we have established the responsibility of the State, and not merely of its officers, for an incident or attack which has led to a lamentable loss of life and to material loss, it fdlows logically that there is a rig;_ to compensation. Th~re is no question of punishment, for the concept of a penalty has not figured either in the statements made by representatives or in the draft resolutions. It is a matter of civil compensation onry. Furthermore, as the United Kingdom representative rightly pointed out [71Oth meeting], we caÏmot ignore the fact that, when we affix the blame, and the responsibility determining the blame, that responsibility inevitably imposes an obligation to make reparation. Such reparation is the more necessary-Aithough, as the representative of China rightly said, no reparation is ever sufficiellt, especial1y for loss of life-in thât ...'1.e prillciple of reparation has been acknowledged by the human conscience since the da\'\'ll of civilization, and must! preserved. 41. The Peruvian delegation feels that there are serious difficulties, for neither the provisions of the Charter nor the previous proceedings of the Council enable us to determine the procedure, or to decide who should impose such compensation. Nevertheless, despite aIl the difficulty we face with regard to what may be termed the procedural aspect, it is necessary to state the principle in our resolution. Naturally the ideal course, as envisaged by the authors of the United Nations Charter, would be for every case involving a principle of law or a legal question or procedure to be referred automatically to the International Court of Justice. This principle, unfortunately, has not yet been achieved in practice: it is a desideratum. The Security Council cannot in a recommendation impose the jurisdiction of the Court; the Court is governed by a Statute which clearly lays down. that it only has jurisdiction when the parties so decide: either through the expression of the will of the parties at a particular moment or on. their appearance before the Court or through invocation of the optional clause. 42. Hence, it is not possible in this case for the Council to recommend that the parties should have recourse to the Court. The parties may, howe'/e" do so. ITl spite of the fact that, according to the information 1 have, Israel is a party to the Statute of the Court whereas Syria is not, if both countries made their submissions to the Court, it would become competent to deal with them. The problem might also be solved by means of an ad hoc arbitral tribunal, and the Peruvian delegation would express its sympathy and support 43. Looking at matters more broadly-and in sa doing 1 aImost feel authorized not merely ta speak on behalf of the P~ruvian delegation but ta take up, as it were, a view that is in the air and has perhaps been expressed by members of the Security Council-Israel was a creation of the Umted Nations. The Arab countries attained independence under the sign of the principle of self-determination, the esst'ntial foundation of the United Nations. It can tlvt\refore be said that, ta some extent, both Israel and the Arab States received their world citizenship and legal personality under the auspices of the United Nations. In this sense, the United Nations h?.s, with regard ta the problems of those countries, not ooly the general jurisdiction conferred on it by the Charter but also what might be called a special kind of jurisdiction, a direct and primordial responsibility for the preservation of peace in that region. 44. It is a region which has a sacred meaning for humanity; from it has come the great contribution of the East to the West in religions, philosophies and spiritual values. Fate has now decreed that the region should receive from the West, as a fitting return, the technical values and new institutions created by Western culture. 45. But the fundamental condition for this exchange is peace. Peace is essential aot only for the progress but for the very life of those peoples, and this plea for peace arises from every heart, showing that peace in that region is something which concerns not those peoples alone but others besides, because we aIl know that a senous situation in the Middle East is a fundamental threat to the interests of humanity. 46. In this knowledge, and realizing that everything speaks for peace and that nothing can be gained by hostility, hatred and war, 1 believe that 1 am not failing in my duty, nor presumptuously assuming a role which is not my own, in making an appeai ta the parties, on behalf of the Security Council, in connexion with this incident, offering them a picture, on the one hand, of aIl the dangers of a poliey of hostility and war and, on the other, of the glorious future and the glorious task which they are called upon ta perfonn in an atmosphere of hannony and peace.