SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINTH MEETING
held in the Hotel de Crillon, Paris,
on Friday, 21 September 1951, at 4 p.m.
PREPARATION FOR THE MEETING WITH THE ISRAEL DELEGATION AT 5 P.M.
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the Commission was to meet at 5 p.m. with the Israel representative, who was to reply to the opening statement. If the Israel representative replied that his delegation was not ready to receive the Commission’s proposals, the Chairman could answer that the Commission would study Israel’s reply. On the other hand, if the Israel representative was prepared to receive the proposals, they would be handed to him as planned, and he would be told that the Commission would then get into touch with him later. The Chairman thought the Commission should meet on the following day in order to decide upon the steps it would take following Israel’s reply.
Mr. MARCHAL (France) proposed that the Commission should meet that evening, after the meeting with the Israel representative, if there were time.
It was so decided.
LIAISON WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT
Mr. de AZCARATE (Principal Secretary) informed the Commission that the British Embassy had notified him that the Foreign Office approved the proposed arrangements for liaison between the Commission and the United Kingdom Government: the liaison would be maintained by regular personal contacts between Mr. Price, First Secretary of Embassy, and the Principal Secretary of the Commission. The liaison could therefore now be considered established.
The CHAIRMAN was convinced that Mr. Price would perform the functions of liaison most satisfactorily, with the greatest understanding and in a most cooperative spirit. The Commission should congratulate itself upon having the services of such a person.
PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION
The CHAIRMAN thought it preferable for the Commission not to meet with the parties on the following Monday but only on that day (Friday). He suggested that they might meet on Tuesday and Thursday with the Arab delegations and on Wednesday and Friday with the Israel delegation, holding the meetings in the late morning. Subject to such changes as might be dictated by circumstances that would be the programme from the following week onwards.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND UNRWA
The CHAIRMAN reminded the Commission that Mr. Fabre, Legal Adviser of UNRWA, was leaving for Beirut on Monday, 24 September. He thought the Commission should thank him for his efficient liaison work between the Commission and UNRWA. Upon arrival in Beirut Mr. Fabre would be able to give a favourable account of the Commission’s work.
Mr. ARAS (Turkey) shared the Chairman’s views concerning Mr. Fabre’s work. He further thought that the Commission might inform the Director of UNRWA that it would be useful for the Commission to have direct contacts with UNRWA when preparing its report. He thought the possibility had been mentioned at a meeting of the two organs at Beirut.
The CHAIRMAN said he had learned from Mr. Fabre who had had an interview with Mr. de Saint-Hardouin, Chairman of the Advisory Commission of UNRWA, that arrangements had been made for the future activities of the Commission and that some members of UNRWA would be coming to Paris at the end of October.
In that connection, the Chairman recalled that Mr. MacAttee, who was to replace Mr. Blandford on the Advisory Commission, was about to leave for Beirut.
Mr. MARCHAL (France) said he had also had occasion to meet Mr. de Saint-Hardouin, who had suggested that the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission should send a letter to the Chairman of the Advisory Commission of UNRWA, expressing the desire for a meeting between the two Commissions in order to agree upon recommendations they proposed to make.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Principal Secretary should draft a letter in that sense referring to the Beirut meeting at which the possibility had been discussed and explaining the Commission’s intention and wishes.
LETTER FROM THE ISRAEL DELEGATION TO THE COMMISSION CONCERNINGA PRESS COMMUNIQUE
The CHAIRMAN drew the Commission’s attention to a letter from the Israel delegation expressing the latter’s point of view concerning the press communiqué of 17 September. The Principal Secretary could answer the letter; it seemed unnecessary for the Commission to discuss it.
Mr. de AZCARATE (Principal Secretary) recalled that the press communiqué had been drafted on his own responsibility and that the Israel delegation’s comment was no more than a common-place incident, containing nothing surprising in itself. However, the first paragraph of the letter raised a specific point, as it spoke of an agreement between the Commission and the Israel delegation. Mr. de Azcarate, however, did not recall anything of the kind having been agreed at a meeting. He would like the Commission to confirm that, so that he might mention the fact in his reply.
Mr. ARAS (Turkey) recalled that at the last meeting with the Israel delegation, the Israel representative had expressed the fear that if he were to make concessions which the other party did not make, his acceptance would be considered binding. The Commission had made it clear that that would not be the case, because the other party would not be informed of the concession. Mr. Aras thought it was sufficient to state that the parties would be informed in the event of the Commission’s deciding to refer to any particular item in the press communiqué. That seemed to be a normal procedure, but the consent of the parties was not necessary.
Mr. MARCHAL (France) thought the point needed clarification on the question of non-aggression the Commission had given Israel the assurance that it would not disclose any concessions that Israel might be prepared to make. In addition, when Israel had asked for the text of a statement by an Arab Government, the Commission has replied that it could not grant Israel’s request without the consent of the author of the statement. He recognized that no written document from any one of the parties should be communicated without that party’s consent. However, that procedure could not apply to press communiqués, for the Commission must be free to decide as to their contents.
The CHAIRMAN shared the views of the Turkish and French representatives and fully agreed that the Commission should not be subject to any control in that respect.
It was so decided.
Réunion avec délégation Israéliens; Liaison avec Royaume Uni; Relations UNRWA-CCNUP; Lettre Israélienne sur Communiqué de presse – 239e séance de CCNUP (Paris) – compte rendu