Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

English (pdf) ||Arabic||Chinese||Franšais||Русский||Espa˝ol||



Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS

UNITED
NATIONS
A

      General Assembly
Distr.
UNRESTRICTED
A/AC.14/SR.32
25 November 1947

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-SECOND MEETING

Lake Success, New York

Monday, 24 November 1947, at 8.30 p.m.

Chairman; Mr. H. V. EVATT (Australia)

Rapporteurs Mr. Thor THORS (Iceland)


CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE REPORTS OF SUB-COMMITTEE 1 AND 2, AND ON THE AMENDMENTS AND PROPOSALS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

The CHAIRMAN recalled that the conclusions of Sub-Committee I were embodied in a Draft Resolution, to which a Plan of Partition with Economic Union was attached. The conclusions of Sub-Committee II were embodied in three Draft Resolutions. As the debate had covered all resolutions, the Committee could now proceed to the vote, it being understood that the movers of amendments, all of which related to the Report of Sub-Committee I, would have the right to support them.

Tho Ad Hoc Committee would first vote on the three draft resolutions submitted by Sub-Committee II.

Mr. GONZALEZ FERNANDEZ (Colombia) felt that the first two resolutions of Sub-Committee II had not received proper consideration. He supported Draft Resolution I to which, he recalled, the delegation of Belgium had made two main objections. In answer to these, Mr Gonzalez Fernandez pointed out firstly that the draft resolution was open to amendment, and secondly that It was never too late to examine all aspects of tho question, when a far-reaching and irrevocable decision was involved.

The delegation of Colombia had, from tho very beginning, held that certain points of substance, namely the legal aspects of the matter, the problem of Jewish displaced persons in Europe and the possibility of conciliation should be dealt with as questions preambles. They were, however, more or less brushed aside by procedural decisions.

No one had contested the legal basis of UNSCOP's unanimous recommendations. But how were these general principles to be implemented? While, at a given time, it seemed that the members of Sub-Committee I would refer to Chapter VI and VII of the Charter as the legal basis for implementation of their plan, the Rapporteur had now mentioned Articles 77 and 80 in this connection. If this was a political matter not covered by the Charter, the Great Powers should decide it outside the Organization. If, however, the fifty-seven nations were to assume grave responsibilities, the question should be dealt with in accordance with the Charter, only safeguard of small nations.

The delegation of Colombia, faithful to the principles of law, asked that a request should be made for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

The delegation of Colombia was not decidedly for or against partition. In sympathy with the Jewish people, it had vainly asked that recommendations VI and XII of UNSCOP should immediately be carried out. If the advisory opinion of the Court was not asked for, the delegation of Colombia would find it very difficult to take a definite position on the proposals now before the Committee. Advocating a recourse to the Court was by no means a negative position. The Mandatory Power was not going to have its force withdrawn in the next three months, and, while the Court studied the matter, an active, well directed attempt might be made toward conciliation. The advisory opinion of the Court and the results of conciliation under United Nations auspices could be considered in a special session of the General Assembly.

Mr. PARODI (France) said that his delegation always paid the utmost attention to such issues as the competence of the United Nations and respect of the Charter. He felt, however, that all questions but one in Resolution I of Sub-Committee II were so general in character as not to constitute legal matters, of which the Court could make a precise study. The first question related, for instance, to an inherent right of the indigenous population of Palestine. This was a political or philosophical, not a legal question.

As the French delegation entertained some doubts in connection with one question, namely clause 8 relating to competence of the United Nations, he requested that Question 8 should be voted upon separately.

The CHAIRMAN put paragraphs 1 to 7 inclusive of the operative part of Resolution I of Sub-Committee II to the vote.

A vote was taken by roll-call. The result was:

In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Against: Australia, Belgium Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstentions: Bolivia, China, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Honduras, India, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Paragraphs 1 to 7 inclusive were rejected by twenty-five votes to eighteen with eleven abstentions

The CHAIRMAN, speaking as representative of Australia, wished to explain the vote he was about to cast on paragraph 8, He considered this question not as a legal but rather as a political matter.

The Chairman put paragraph 8 of the operative part of Resolution I to the vote.

A vote was taken by roll-call The result was:

In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Greece, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey Yemen.

Against: Australia, Byelorussian, Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Iceland, New Zealand Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstentions: Belgium, Bolivia, China, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Paragraph 8 was rejected by twenty-one votes to twenty with thirteen Abstention

The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee would now turn to Resolution No. 2 of Sub-Committee II, He recalled that a recommendation dealing with the same subject-matter had been debated in the Third Committee end adopted V the General Assembly.

On request of the representative of Argentina, the three recommendations were put to the vote separately, consideration of the preamble being deferred.

The Chairman put paragraph 1 of the operative part of Resolution II of Sub-Committee II to a vote.

A vote was taken by roll-call.

The result was

In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen.

Against: Australia, Canada Chile, Denmark, Guatemala, Iceland Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstentions: Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Luxembourg, Mexico Nicaragua, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Paragraph of the operative part was adopted by seventeen votes to fourteen, with twenty-three abstentions.

The CHAIRMAN put to the vote paragraph 2.

A vote was taken by roll-call. The result was:

In favour: Afghanistan, Belgium, Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Norway, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Siam, Syria, Yemen.

Against: Australia, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Guatemala, Iceland, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of 'Soviet Socialist Republics, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstentions: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvager, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Paragraph 2 of the operative part was adopted by eighteen vote a to sixteen with twenty-one abstentions.

The Chairman put to the vote paragraph 3 of the operative part.

A vote was taken by roll-call. The result was;

In favour: Afghanistan, China, Colombia, Egypt, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Siam, Syria, Yemen.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Denmark, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstentions: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

paragraph 3 of the operative part was rejected by eighteen votes to fifteen, with twenty-two abstentions.

Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) noted that the representative from Lebanon had quoted an article from the "New York Times" in which a reference was made to the Soviet Union. Mr. Tsarapkin declared that that article was an absurd and slanderous invention. The fact that it had been published on the eve of a decision on the question of Palestine clearly showed its provocatory aims.

The CHAIRMAN noted that two recommendations had been adopted. He put the Preamble of Resolution II of Sub-Committee II to the vote paragraph by paragraph.

The first paragraph was adopted^by twenty votes to ten.

The second paragraph was adopted by twenty-two votes to twelve.

The third paragraph was rejected by, seventeen votes to fifteen.

The fourth paragraph was rejected by seventeen votes to fifteen.

The fifth paragraph was adopted by eighteen votes to fifteen.

The Chairman put the sixth paragraph to the vote.

A vote was taken by roll-call, The result was:

In favour: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland,Siam, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet-Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Wilted States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstentions: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, India, Mexico, Nicaragua, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

The sixth paragraph was rejected by twenty-six votes to eleven, with eighteen abstentions.

The seventh paragraph was adopted by eighteen votes to fifteen

The eighth and ninth paragraph were adopted without a formal vote.

The CHAIRMAN put the whole of Resolution II of Sub-Committee II as adopted, to the vote.

A vote was taken by roll-call. The result was;

In favour: Afghanistan, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, France, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen.

Against; Australia, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Guatemala, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstentions: Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, Siam, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Yemen.

The CHAIRMAN noted that Resolution II, as previously adopted, had received sixteen votes in favour with sixteen against and twenty-three abstentions On proposal of the Chairman it was agreed that the new text of Resolution II as voted upon in the Ad Hoc Committee, would be included in the report to the General Assembly.

The Chairman put Resolution III of Sub-Committee II to the vote.

A vote was taken by roll-call. The result was:

In favour: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Siam, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Resolution III of Sub-Committee II was rejected by twenty-nine votes to twelve with fourteen abstentions.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Committee would now proceed to vote on the amendments to the Report of Sub-Committee I:

Mr. KAUEFMAN (Denmark) introduced his amendment (A/AC.14/93). No delegation, whether voting for, against or abstaining, could escape moral and political responsibilities regarding this problem, one of the most serious in the history of the United Nations. The delegation of Denmark was in favour of partition only because of its conviction that no other cure could be successful and that this operation, so to speak, left some hope.

It had been contended that the General Assembly did not have the legal power to appoint such a Commission as was contemplated. The Danish amendment aimed at putting the action of the United Nations on a firmer ground. While not altering the respective position of the Security Council and the General Assembly in connection with Palestine, this amendment tended to clarify the position and perhaps amplify it.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Committee would vote upon the amendments in the order of the relevant paragraphs in Sub-Committee's report.

Mr. SASSEN (Netherlands) felt that more time was necessary to study amendments which had just been circulated.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the text referred to by the representative of Netherlands was a Joint proposal by the delegations of Norway and Pakistan (A/AC.14/46) with regard to the composition of the Commission, which the General Assembly was asked to establish.

Sir ZAFRULLAH KHAN (Pakistan) said that no names of delegations should be submitted to the General Assembly, which would elect the members of the Commission on a broad basis.

Mr. MORGENSTIERNE (Norway) was now in a position to declare that his delegation did not find it possible to accept membership of the Commission. The composition of the Commission as contemplated in the Report of Sub-Committee I would not prove satisfactory, and, in order to give the Commission the greatest possible authority and prestige the delegation of Norway felt that its members should be selected on a broader basis, geographically and otherwise. An amendment had been submitted in this connection by the representative of Pakistan. An agreement was reached by the two delegations on a joint text (A/AC.14/46), which was now before the Commission.

Mr. PRUSZYUSKI (Poland) pointed out that the text submitted by, the representatives of Norway and Pakistan did not specify who was to elect the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN said that the words by the General Assembly could be added after the words "shall be elected" in document A/AC.14/46.

Mr. FABREGAT (Uruguay) warmly supported the rational and equitable proposal of the delegation of Norway and Pakistan. .While considering it as an honour that Uruguay had been mentioned in this connection, his delegation had abstained on the decision on this matter in Sub-Committee I.

Mr. PARODI (France) felt that practical considerations should be decisive in setting up a Commission, the composition of which should ensure the best possible discharge-of its duties. The text of the Joint amendment should therefore end with the words "shall be elected by the General Assembly", At any rate the words "and otherwise" should be omitted, as it was far from clear what was thereby implied.

Mr. GARCIA GRANAEOS (Guatemala) said that, while not sparing any effort to assist Sub-Committee I, he had abstained from voting on this matter, as his country was mentioned by name. The composition of the commission as advocated was the result of a compromise, as controversies had arisen in this connection in the Working Group on Implementation. Five names had finally been selected, as it was felt that a less concrete proposal would meet with less support on the part of the Committee.

The delegation of Guatemala was in full agreement with the amendment submitted by the representative of Pakistan and Norway.

Mr. TEORS, (Iceland) Rapporteur, pointed out that his Government had not taken any position as yet on the question of Iceland "serving with the future Commission.

He warmly supported the proposal by the delegations of Norway and Pakistan that the Commission should be elected by the General Assembly. Should Iceland later be mentioned in this connection, his Government would, in due course, adopt an attitude on this matter.

Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) wanted to put a question to the representatives of Norway and Pakistan. The Commission was to include five member states to be elected on a wide basis geographically and otherwise. Did that mean that governments which supported the resolution of Sub-Committee I ought to be chosen, or was another interpretation possible.

The CHAIRMAN said that, as made clear by the representatives of Pakistan and Norway, the Ad Hoc Committee would not nominate the five States to serve on the Commission. The composition of the Commission would be determined by the General Assembly, it being recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee that the members should be selected on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

Mr. MORGEKSTIERNE (Norway) stressed the importance of the word "otherwise" which implied that the basis should be as broad as possible in every respect.

Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) asked whether each geographical region independently of its attitude toward the Sub-Committee's resolution, could have pretensions to membership of the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN replied that the word "geographically" was qualified by "otherwise";

Mr. ZULOAGA (Venezuela) emphasized that two unanimous opinions of Sub-Committee I should be taken into consideration by the General Assembly. It was understood that the commission should be composed of small powers, which was meant merely to exclude great powers. Secondly the five countries to be selected should have declared themselves in favour of partition in a very definite matter, as it would be illogical to appoint a country opposed to partition.

The delegation of Venezuela while supporting the joint amendment, felt that its wording should be modified in the light of what had been said by the representative of France.

The CHAIRMAN noted that the countries which had been nominated did not object to the amendment of the delegations of Pakistan and Norway, if it was made clear that the General Assembly would select the members of the Commission.

The Chairmen asked whether there was any objection to the adoption of the amendment with the addition of the words "by the General Assembly" after the words "shall be elected".

General AS-SAID (Iraq,) stated that, since his delectation was going to reject partition completely, he did not intend to participate in the discussion on the amendments to the partition plan, and would abstain from voting thereon.

The CHAIRMAN said that he did not mean to have a positive vote on the question. He understood the position of the representative of Iraq, which would be recorded.

As there was no objection to the amendment, the Chairman declared it adopted by the Committee.

The Chairman asked the representative of the Netherlands to introduce this amendment A/AC.l4/36.

Mr. SASSEH (Netherlands) stated that his delegation, while proposing two amendments to the draft resolution of Sub-Committee I, completely reserved its ultimate position as to the reports of both Sub-Committees. Submitting amendments to the report of Sub-Committee I did not mean that his delegation had no appreciation of the quality of the work done by Sub-Committee II.

In connection with the amendment of his delegation on boundaries, Mr. Sassen pointed out that, if a United Nations Commission went to Palestine, it would be bound by precise instructions concerning boundaries, except on a few minor points such as the boundaries between Jaffa and Tel-Aviv. That was unwise, all the more as the proposed frontier divided a great number of villages.

A state must be composed of a number of units, the smallest of which were villages. Village boundaries had therefore a basic significance for state frontiers. Special circumstances had to be taken into consideration and village boundaries were not immutable, but two things should be noted: firstly, special circumstances could be better taken into account on the spot than in New York, end secondly, the number of fifty-four village divisions seemed to indicate that Sub-Committee I did not apply as much as possible the principle that a state had to be composed of a number of local units.

The amendment purposely left unspecified which reasons, geographical or otherwise might make the division of villages as necessity. But in any case the wishes of the local population had to be taken into consideration.

In this respect the report of the Woodhead Commission seemed to indicate the advisability of local arrangements. These could be made in the of the Sub-Committee's conclusions, and of the advisability to avoid village divisions as much as possible.

Sir ZAFRULLAH KHAN (Pakistan) pointed out that fifty-four villages were involved, that is to say some 108,000 inhabitants, who would be counted the Arab side, although their lands were within the Jewish State. That was an undesirable solution. Either the lands should go with them to the Arab State, or they should go with the lands into the Jewish State so that they could elect a majority of the constituent assembly in the Jewish Stat.

Mr. JOHNSON,(United States) was in favour of the amendment of the delegation of the Netherlands. Its wording, while sufficiently broad to give the proper discretion to the boundary commission, provided it with guiding principles which should be followed.

In connection with the words "unless pressing.reasons make that necessary" Mr. Johnson said that these would require that.good reasons should be shown.

The CHAIRMAN declared that, as there,was no objection, the two amendments of the delegation of Netherlands relating to boundaries as set forth in item 1 in document A/AC.l4/36 were adopted.

The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee would now vote of the first amendment of the French delegation relating to Part I, Section C, Chapter 1, paragraph 2.

Mr. PARODI (France) recalled that some explanations had already been given on the French amendments.

The first amendment tended to replace, the text, of Part I, Section C, Chapter I, paragraph 2 by the text as in A/AC. 14/37 which, the French delegation deemed to be more precise.

The second and third .amendments concerned Part I, Section C, Chapter 2, paragraph 6 and, Part III, Section C Chapter 12, paragraph 12, Clause 6. In both cases the words. "Foreign educational establishments shall continue their activity on the basis of their existing rights" should be added, so that the regime which had prevailed for so many years should be maintained.

The fourth amendment concerned the addition to Part III, Section C, paragraph 10, clause 7 of the words "and particularly "English and French".

The fifth and sixth amendments consisted In the substitution of a same text both for Part III, Section C, paragraph 12, Clause 5 and for Part I Section C, Chapter 2, paragraph,5, While this text was rather similar to that of the Report, it tended to, render the French text more precise, all the more as the latter did not seem to be exactly in accordance with the English text. Activities of religious or charitable todies of all faiths were involved.

Sir ZAFRULLAH KHAN while having no objection to the purpose of the French Amendment, said that it was necessary that the words in conformity with the existing rights "should be inserted after "in transit shall be guaranteed".

Mr PARODI (France) accepted this amendment

The CHAIRMAN said that as there was no objection, the amendment submitted by the French delegation in connection with Part I, Section C, Chapter 1 paragraph 2*, was adopted, with the addition of the words "in conformity with existing rights" after the words "in transit shall be guaranteed".

The Chairman introduced the amendment submitted by the delegation of Australia (document A/AC.14/39). He referred to the note by his delegation (A/AC.14/41), which gave a "Partial list of Roman catholic activities in Palestine," showing that both in Jerusalem and in the two States such institutions and sites existed.

The object of the Australian amendment was to deal with a situation which was not entirely covered. The amendment prevented discrimination between various types of religion or places belonging to different religions and it protected the group of Holy Places belonging to all religions against discriminatory taxation directed against them, either in the two States or in the City of Jerusalem.

As there was no objection, the Chairman declared that the amendment submitted by the delegation of Australia (A/AC.14/39) was adopted.

The meeting rose at 11.15 p.m.


-----

* First amendment in document A/AC.14/37.


Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter