S/PV.948 Security Council

At a time when the tension prevailing in so many countries of the world gives us daily cause for concern, when by turns the situation in some part of Asia, Africa, America· or Europe, with its potential complications, moves into the limelight of current world events, and particularly when this Council has been obliged to assemble so often in order to pronounce on developments in the Congolese crisis, it is comforting to observe the calm that has reigned almost uninterruptedly for several years onthis eastern shore ofthe Mediterraneanwhich has known such agitation in the pasto 2. For many months now, questions whichatonetime were apt to be the first topic of dicussion have not required our attention. That should be a source of kt)en satisfaction t-o us. The representatives of both States which are parties in our discussion have remll.rked on this happy lull. It is with particular pleasure that 1 mention their reference to it, for this seems to me ta prove that their Governments are determined to spare no effort to solve their differences amicably, in order that this propitious climate may continue. 4. 1 was therefore especially happy to hear both parties state that they intended to limit their remarks to the particular question for which our meeting was called, and that they had no wish to aw~en dormant quarrels or revive old grievances. My delegation contratulates them on this and on the moderation which they have shown in their statements. 5. The representative ofJordan alluded to the agitated feelings which took hold of his country's authorities and the population of Jerusalem when armoured vehicles and artillery of Israel unexpectedly enteredthe Israel sector of the city, in the middIe of the night of 16-17 March, for the rehearsal of a parade announced for a later date. 6. 1 readily admit the legitimacy of the anxieties which might be aroused, in such cases, by memories of a past which we trust is definitely ended. These anxieties must be fittingly dispelled; and 1 am glad to note that the Government of Israel, as indicated by its representative in his letter to the President of the Council [8/4778], is ready "to co-operate with all appropriate measures designed to relieve Jordanian apprehenl'lions". 1 further note that this assurance was renewed in the statement by the representative of Israel. 7. The representative of Jordan has requested the Council to consider-and 1 quote from his lettel'-a "violation of the Armistice Agreement and acts of military provocation which threaten international peace and security". He obviously does not imagine that the ceremony planned by Israel for 20 April might be a direct threat to his country. According to what he himself has told us, the Mixed Armistice Commission was informed of the Israel authorities' intentions as early as 7 March. iflamnot mistaken, the parade's route and composition were specified. A guarantee was given that the armament in the parade would include no ammunition and that the ceremony would take place in the presence of United Nations observers. 8. Our Jordanian colleague has told us thatthe armament displayed at Jerusalem in the early hours of 17 March had, before the end of that morning, left the city and proceeded towards the village of Battir. Apcording to the representative of Israel, the Mixed Armistice Commission has been assured that the same would happen on 20 April, and that after a brief parade all the equipment would be removed in a matter Qf hours. Thus it is quite evident that the ceremony 10. Regarding the precautions to be taken to avert possible incidents, our Council is obviously not in a position to give technical advice. Only the experts on the spot can decide on that subject, with the necessary competence and authority. 11. It does not appear that there i3 any argument as to the principle, for we recall that the representative of Israel announced his Government's readiness, in addition to the guarantees it had already given, to furnish the Mixed Armistice Commission and the Jordanian authorities with aU the necessary assurancèS. 12. The question, then, is to decide on practical methods. As the representative of the United Arab Republic has pointed out, the Mixed Armistice Commission is an organ subordinate to our Council. It is, as it were, an extension of the Council. In referring this task to \t, we do not really dismiss the matter but simply entrust it to the body, subordinate to us, which is the most capable of fulfilling the task. 13. With regard to respect for the Armistice Agreement and its provisions, 1 shall, like the representatives of Jordan and Israel, confine myself strictly to the circumstances of the present case. It would evidently not be going too far to note that a parade like the one planned for 20 April w!ls held as long ago as 1958. The Mixed Armistice Commission raised no objection at that time, and the delegation of Israel adduces this precedent in support of its case. The delegation of Jordan, on the other hand, rejects this particular argument and holds strictly to the opinion expressed by the same Commission on the present occasion. The precedent is doubtless not convincing, but neither is it possible to let it pass unnoticed. 14. We were furthermore reminded at our 947th meeting on 6 April 1961 that in 1960, during celebrations or official visits, a number of parades and military or air displays had been held at Jerusalem in which the Jordanian authorities had included equipment not authorized by the Armistice Agreement. In mentioning this fact, it is by no means my intention to reproach the Jordanian authorities or to voice the slightest criticism in regard to it. l feel, nevertheless, that the reminder cannot simply be ignored on the ground that the presence of this armament called forth no observation from the Mixed Armistice Commission. 1 wish to point out, rather, that in the minds of the Jordanian authorities the presence of this armament could notbe considered as offensive in character and was in no way intended as a provocation or challenge to the neighbouring State of Israel. 1 have no doubt of the 15. What has to be determined-in the spirit of the Armistice Agreement, which allows only defensive forces in tllis area-is whetller tlle forces of either country, which have taken or will take part in such demonstrations, could in any way be regarded as nondefensive, that is, as offensive. In our view, it is for tlle competent organ to decide this. 16. In his statement at the 947th meeting, our Jordanian colleague quoted the following words of the Chairman of the Mhœd Armistice Commission: "The General Armistice Agreement contains no provision which authorizes a party in certain circumstances and for certain purposes to bring prohibited war material into Jerusalem, unless the other concurs." 17. It follows from these words that a decision in this matter may be taken through common agreement by the two parties. Respect for the provisions of the Armistice Agreement-which we musturge witll aIl the force at our command-does not preclude an understanding by the parties to permit reasonable exceptions. 18. This observation strengthens my conviction that we must hope that, through and within the framework of t.lte Mixed Armistice Commission, and in full respect for tlle terms and intent of the Agreement, a solution will be found between the parties for the problem submitted to us. The goodwill and moderation shown at tllis table by both sides are, 1 feel, calculated to encourage such hopes, ::md if these prove justified no one would rejoice more than 1. 19. Ml'. LOUTFI (United Arab Republic) (translated from French): At the 947th meeting of tlle Council, 1 had the honour ta. state the position of my delegation on tlle question which we are discussing today. 20. 1 shall today merely say a few words on the draft resolution [8/4784] which, jointly with the representative of Ceylon, 1 have just submitted. This draft resoluti6n is so short that 1 propose to read itj it has just been distributed to members of the ·Council. As 1 do not yet have tlle French text, with the permission of the Council 1 shall read it in English: "The 8ecurity Council, "Having considered the complaint submitted on 1 April 1961 by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan [8/4777], "Noting the decision of the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission on·20 March 1961 [8/4776], 21. As you can see, this text is simple and clear: it ret1ects the point of view which my delegation put forward at the 947th meeting of the Council; it needs no explanation; and it is designed, purely and simply, to confirm the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission of 20 March 1961. 22. Furthermore, nobody has questioned the cogency of the facts which led the Commission to reach its decision; nor, in our opinion, has anybody questioned the provisions of the Armistice Agreement which apply to those facts. Specifically, &s you will remember, article Vil of this Agreement states: "The military forces of the Parties to this Agree~ ment shall be limited ta defensive forces only in the areas extending ten kilometres l'rom each side of the Armistice Demarcation Lines, .•."li 23. Finally, annex II to the Agreement excludes l'rom the term "defensive forces" armour, sueh as tanks of aIl types, armoured vehicles or load carriers, or any other armoured vehicles. 24. Despite this clear and precise decision, Israel does not conceal its intention of violating it. In our opinion, therefore, the Council must confirm this decision of one of its subsidiary organs, the Mixed Armistice Commission. This is the aim of the draft resolution which, jointly with the representative of Ceylon, 1 have the honour to submit. 25. If we allow violations of this type without taking a decision, the work of the Mixed Armistice Commission may be brought to a standstill, and wemay as a result be faced with a danger to peace and security in this part of the world. 26. Furthermore, Jerusalem, a holy city with a special status, is'not the place for military displays, when they are clearly forbidden by the provisions of the Jordan-Israel Armistice Agreement. 1 am confident that the members of the Council will vote for this draft resolution, which confines itself ta the facts of the problem before us today.

When 1 first heard that JO:i:'dan was about ta bring ta the Se'curity Council a complaint against Israel for projecting a military parade in Jerusalem on 20 April, 1 hoped that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, or the President of the Security Council, might help the two parties ta arrive at an agreement so as to render a meeting of the Security Council linnecessary. 1 was very much afraid that a debate in the Security Council might increase the political tension in the Middle East. 28. Fortunately for us aIl, the atmosphere in the Middle East has been relatively calm during the last two or three years. The Security Counci! has not had 30. Now that the Security Council has included the Jordanian complaint on its agenda, 1 am glad that the debate so far has been relatively moderate. In opening this debate [947th meeting], the representative oi Jordan set an example of moderation, and the representative of Israel responded in the same spirit of moderatio.1. We have, therefore, good reason to be thankful for the mood of this debate. 31. The law and the facts involved in the present complaint are all very clear. The military parade, as planned by Israel for 20 April in the city of Jerusalem, would constitute a violation of the General Armistice Agreement. The Mixed Armistice Commission has made this clear beyond any possibility of doubt. 32. In matters Telating to the Middle Eastmydelegation has generaUy relied on the reports, conclusions and decisions ofresponsible representatives or organs of the United Nations on the spot. In the present case, 1 see no reasonwhatsoever for not upholding the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission. 33. The Chairman of the Commission, furthermore, made the following very clear statement after his Commission adopted the decision: "The Jordan authorities have considered this display as a breach of the General Armistice Agreement, which excludes the presence in theJerusalem sector of armour and other war material such as that which wa~ brought here during the night of 17 March. The General Armistice Agreement contains no provision whichauthorizes a party in certain circumstances and for certain reasons to bring prohibited war material into Jerusalem, unless the other concurs." These words of the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission seem to my delegation to be eminently wise; and 1 emphasize that any departure from the General Armistice Agreement, if allowed at aU, could only be aUowed with the concurrence of both parties. 34. It has been claimedby the representative of Israel that the military parade is a minor matter which in no way threatens peace. In a material sense the claim may be justified. However, under the present circustances, the military parade is politically and psychologically not a minor matter. 35. 1would, therefore, urge the Government ofIsrael to make a contribution towards the maintenance of calm in the Middle East by implementing scrupulously the terms of the General Armistice Agreement. 37. This Council is weIl acquainted with the history of earlier difficulties in the Jerusalem area and will, l am sure, agree that any differences of view there need the most careful handling if strong feelings are not to be aroused and unwise actions to result. It must be the aim of aIl members of this Council, as of the two parties to this complaint, to do what we can to avoid the risk of disturbing the peace in Jerusalem. This is certainly the aim with which the Government approaches this debate. 38. It is not necessary for me to restate the facts of this case. This has already been done in the statements we have heard and in the documents which we have before us. Nor, as l understand it, Is there any real dispute as to the facts. What is at issue here, so it seems to me, is the maintenance'of the authority of the Jordan-Israel MixedArmistice Commission, which is the proper body to supervise the maintenance of peace in this area. 39. The Mixed Armistice Commission has found that the bringing in of military equipment in excess of that permitted under the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel constitutes a breach of that Agreement. While accepting the assurances of the representative of Israel that the introduction of this equipment would only be for the purposes of Israel's Independence Day parade and that his Government has no intention ofdisturbing the calm which prevails in Jerusalem today; while noting that a similar parade was held in 1958 and that the present proposaI does not, as the representative of the Soviet Union suggested at the 947th meeting, constitute an aggressive action; nevertheless, this Council must uphold the findings of the Mixed Armistice Commission. 40. My delegation is also concerned that the authority of the Commission be maintained in order to prevent, in the future, the repetition of similar incidents and, thus, the erosion of the Armistice Agreement. My delegation will study the draft resolution which has just been introduced :fuis afternoon by the representatives of the United Arab Republic and Ceylon [8/4784]. 41. The success of the Commission in its difficult task depends, of course, upon the full co-operation of aIl members of the Commission. l am not thinking about the past; l am thinking about the future. l am sure that this Council will agree that any resolution we may adopt should earnestly request that the members of the Mixed Armistice Commission will cooperate in observing the letter and the spirit of the 43. 1wish to state at the outset that the only interest which my Government has in any question affecting the Middle East, of which we ourselves form a part, can be no other than the common interest of peace and security in justice and equity. 44. It is not conceivable that Turkey should at any moment be motivated by any other consideration, as peace alone can open for this region of the world the path of accelerated economic, social, cultural and political progress. to which we aU aspire. In aU its history, Turkey has maintained a record of strict observance of the letter and the spirit ofaU its international commitments. Here in the United Nations there may have been times when we have faced friendly criticism of being perhaps too juridically strict or even too formalistic in our interpretation of the Charter or of other treaty obligations. We have never been acc.used of non-compliance with any Charter obligation, be it normal, juridical or political. Therefore, in the question now standing before the Security COUDcil, it is natural that my delegation should be guided by the provisions of the Armistice Agreement and the mechanism for deciding on conflicts of interpretation of those provisions which has been established in the Agreement itself, that is to say. the decisions of the Mixed Armistice Commission. 45. In presenting its case to the Security Council at the 947th meeting, the representative of Jordan said: "... 1 trust that aU the members around this table will appreciate the significance of our case within its own dimensions. We are submitting a specific complaint for which we seek a specific decision." It follows that, in the words of the complaining party itself. we are requested to confine ourselves to the merits of the particular incident. 46. As concerns the juridical provisions involved, the analysis made by the representative of Jordan cannot be disputed. The provisions of article VII and of annex II of the Armistice Agreementare clear. Besides, the representative of Israel himself has not objected to this legal analysis; instead, he has cited four previous cases in which we were told that sorne forms of military parade had taken place on the Jordanian side, and one case in which arrangements for a ceremonial parade on the Israel sidewere made by the Mixed Armistice Commission. 49. In these circumstances, and especially since we have no information to the contrary, we have to assume that since there has been no complaint in the four cases which were mentioned, it must follow that those particular examples have taken place in conformity with article XII of the Armistice Agreement, which lays the ground for mutual consent. As for the fifth case, concerning a ceremonial parade in 1958 which was permitted by the Mixed Armistice Commission, it must be granted that the Commission is competent to study each case on its own merits and to seek a workable solution. 50. Therefore, in the opinion of my delegation, these previous cases did not contradict the provisions of the Armistice Agreement. At the most, these previous cases may be accepted as reasons which may have led the authorities of Israel to assume that perhaps there would be no objection to their holding a parade at this time. However, since there has been a complaint, the mutual consent envisaged in paragraph 3 of article XII cannotbe invoked inthis phase of the question. Therefore, the interpretation of the Armistice provisions involved is a matter which falls under the competence of the Mixed Armistice Commission, as envisaged in article XI. In fact, the Mixed Armistice Commission rendered a decision on 20 March which must be considered as binding for the parties, unless~ of course, some other arrangement is reached by mutual consent. 51. In conclusion, it is the opinion of my delegation that the submission of this disagreement by the Government of Jordan to the Mixed Armistice Commission and the decision of that Commission are in order, as the Mixed Armistice Commission is the competent authority in the matter. As a member of the Security Council and a country particularly interested in the preservation of peace in the Middle East, we wish to urge compliance with the provisions of the Armistice Agreement and the decisions of the Mixed Armistice Commission. In doing so, we hope that the interested parties will give priority to the cause of peace and security above any other con· siderations in connexion with this matter.

1 thank the President for giving me the opportunity to make a brief statement at this point. 53. Various delegations have rightly drawn attention to and expressed their satisfaction at the relative calm prevailing in our area and in particular with reference to the relations between Israel and Jordan, during the past several years. It is to be doubted whether the draft resolution now before the Council

1 have no further speakers on my Hst for this meeting. 1 am informed that some representatives would like to consult· their Governments on this matter and, in the circumstances, 1propose to adjourn this meeting and to meet again tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. It was so decided. The meeting rose at 4.45 p.m.