Home || Permalink
U N I T E D N A T I O N S

Distr.
RESTRICTED

A/AC.25/SR.238
17 September 1951

Original: English



UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHTH MEETING
held in the Hotel de Crillon, Paris,
on Saturday, 17 September 1951, at 5 p.m.

CONTENTS
-- Procedure to be taken following the statement by the Israel representative

-- Verbal report by the Principal Secretary on liaison established with the United Kingdom Government


PRESENT
Chairman:Mr. PALMERUnited States of America
Members:Mr. MARCHALFrance
Mr. ARASTurkey
Alternates:Mr. BARCOUnited States of America
Mr. de NICOLAYFrance
Mr. TEPEDELENTurkey
Secretariat:MR. de AZCARATEPrincipal Secretary


PROCEDURE TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING THE STATEMENT BY THE ISRAEL REPRESENTATIVE

The CHAIRMAN said that the impression he had gathered from Mr. Shiloah was that the Israel Government would agree to receive the Commission’s proposals; Mr. Shiloah had, however, received no instructions to that effect from Mr. Sharett.

Mr. ARAS (Turkey) thought the Israel representative’s statement might be the indication of a possible refusal by Israel to recognize the Commission’s mediatory function. Israel would thereby place itself in a difficult position in relation to the General Assembly. It was true that the statement did not contain a previous question but it suggested that a flat refusal might be intended. There was no doubt that if Israel raised a previous question, the conference would be unable to continue.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) said it was not by any means certain that Israel would refuse the Commission’s mediations; on the contrary, it was very possible that they would agree to the Commission’s exercising such a function at joint meetings. He further observed that the Arabs, for their part, had raised the question of the Commission’s competence and that a difficulty might arise in that connection,

Mr. ARAS (Turkey) shared the French representative’s view but pointed out that the Arab delegations had certainly not ruled out the possibility of discussion. That was an important point.

Mr. BARCO (United States), in reply to the French representative, said that the statement by the Arab delegations was in fact the most encouraging one the Commission heard so far.

The CHAIRMAN stated that the Arab delegations clearly expected the Commission to submit more detailed proposals.

Mr. MARCHAL (France), for his part, felt that it was difficult to make any further approach to the Arab delegations until Israel had replied,

The CHAIRMAN thought it preferable in the circumstances, whilst awaiting the Israel reply, to devote special attention to the matter of the preamble, in other words the statement of non-aggression which the Commission had always considered an essential condition, and to agree on more detailed suggestions than those contained in the comprehensive proposals, in order to be ready to take up that aspect of the question as soon as circumstances permitted.

Mr. ARAS (Turkey) thought it would be preferable to await the views of the parties and confine themselves for the moment to giving explanations, if asked. He shared the French representative’s view that it would be preferable for the Commission not to meet with the Arab delegations before receiving an answer from the Israel Government, provided; however, that the delay was not too long. He suggested that the next meeting with the Arab delegations be held on Monday, 24 September, subject to the above proviso.

It was so decided.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) agreed to that procedure but suggested that if Israel replied earlier than was expected, the Commission should be ready to make detailed proposals concerning the preamble, as the Chairman had wisely suggested.

VERBAL REPORT BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ON THE LIAISON ESTABLISHED WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT

Mr. de AZCARATE (Principal Secretary) reported that, in accordance with the Commission’s instructions, he had had an interview with the British Ambassador with a view to studying the possibilities of a regular liaison between the British Government and the Commission. Mr. de Azcarate had explained that his visit was of a preliminary nature and had handed the Ambassador a copy of the Chairman’s opening statement and the Commission’s comprehensive proposals. Mr. Price, First Secretary of Embassy, in charge of Middle East questions, had been present at the interview and had stated that the British Government would welcome such a liaison; he had further said that his Government awaited an official invitation from the Commission. In the course of the conversation, mention was made of the possibility of the United Kingdom appointing an observer to attend the Commission’s meetings, but Mr. de Azcarate had explained the disadvantages of such an arrangement, and the suggestion was dropped.

At the conclusion of the interview, it was suggested that the liaison between the British Government and the Commission could take the form of regular personal contacts between the Principal Secretary of the Commission and a member of the Embassy staff designated by the Ambassador for the purpose, subject to the reservation that, if the United Kingdom should wish its relations with the Commission to be more official, contacts with the Governments represented on the Commission could be arranged through the normal diplomatic channels.

Mr. de Azcarate added that reference had been made to the communication from the United States Government to its Embassy in London instructing the latter to inform the Foreign Office of the United States Government’s desire that the Commission should have the support of the British Government during the conference and, to that end, that a regular liaison be established between them. The British Ambassador stated that he would inform the Foreign Office of the results of the interview and would notify the Commission of the Foreign Office’s reply.


The meeting rose at 5:30 p.m.


Document in PDF format

Réponse différée d'Israël de accepter le recevoir des propositions; liaison avec le Royaume Uni – 238e séance de CCNUP (Paris) – Compte rendu Français