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

Distr.
RESTRICTED

A/AC.25/SR.338
30 June 1959

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH


UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHTH MEETING (CLOSED)
Held at Headquarters, New York,
on 18 June 1959, at 5 p.m.






CONTENTS
1. Adoption of the agenda
2. Draft outline of a report


PRESENT
Chairman:Mr. ASIROGLUTurkey
Members:Mr. DAUGEFrance
Mr. PEDERSEN (Acting)United States
Secretariat:Mr. CHAIActing Principal Secretary
Mr. BERNCASTLELand Consultant
Mr. HALL

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The agenda was adopted.

2. DRAFT OUTLINE OF A REPORT

The CHAIRMAN conveyed to the members of the Commission Mr. Menemencioglu’s regret at not being able to be present. He drew attention to the draft outline of a report prepared by the Secretariat in accordance with the suggestions made by members of the Commission at an informal meeting two days before.

Mr. PEDERSEN (United States of America) asked whether it would be worthwhile mentioning in the report the global estimate made in 1951 of the movable property of the refugees. Concerning part III 13, he wondered whether it was desirable to give much detail on the question of valuation. In part IV, he thought, it should be made clear that “identification” referred to immovable property.

Mr. DAUGE (France) thought that the draft outline proceeded from the basis suggested by the Chairman at the informal meeting of the Commission, namely that the Commission should describe what it was doing and not attempt to state what it was not doing. He agreed with Mr. Pedersen’s comment concerning part IV. Part V, he felt, would be the principal portion to be considered and would obviously raise more problems than the other parts.

The CHAIRMAN, speaking as representative of Turkey, agreed with the observations made by the representatives of the United States and France. At the suggestion of the Acting Principal Secretary, the Chairman invited Mr. Berncastle to give his views on the question of including mention of the global estimate on the movable property of the refugees and on the danger of including material valuation.

Mr. BERNCASTLE was inclined to doubt whether there would be any particular advantage in mentioning the 1951 global estimate on movable property. As for the reference in the draft outline to the question of valuation, the formula employed seemed to him harmless. Valuation was admittedly the objective towards which the identification programme was directed. He would be prepared to justify the date and period mentioned; in fact, he believed that the date had actually been discussed with the parties in the past.

Mr. DAUGE (France) felt that the members of the Commission should review with care the suggestions made in part V and give their views on them.

Mr. CHAI (Acting Principal Secretary) welcomed that procedure. The various points listed in part V were suggestions as to the range and nature of the observations which could be made in this part. Since it would contain, in effect, the political substance of the report, he would appreciate all the guidance that the members of the Commission could provide with regard to the preparation of this part.

The CHAIRMAN, speaking as representative of Turkey, concurred in the view that part V would undoubtedly be the most important part of the report.

Mr. DAUGE (France), referring to the first point under part V, said that it would of course be indispensable to outline the nature and scope of the work, but wondered whether they would in fact be dealt with in the introductory sections (parts I and II). Should the Commission state specifically what it was not doing?

Mr. CHAI (Acting Principal Secretary) explained that the first point under part V referred to the view expressed by the Chairman in the informal meeting of the Commission to the effect that the Commission was not laying down a basis for an over-all settlement of the refugee problem.

Mr. DAUGE (France), in the light of the explanation given by the Acting Principal Secretary, agreed that the point should be included. The fourth point under part V would be very useful. In fact, on the basis of a preliminary examination, he felt that all the points suggested under part V should be included in the draft to be prepared. He wondered whether point 3 could be made more precise. Did it concern documents known to be held by anyone in particular?

Mr. BERNCASTLE thought that point 3 should be read in conjunction with point 5. The Governments concerned had made available all the material known to be at their disposal, but the Commission’s staff had on occasion discovered in their archives material of whose existence these Governments had been unaware. The intention was to invite the parties, should any more material come to light, to make it known to the Commission.

After further discussion it was agreed that the Secretariat should proceed to prepare a draft, based upon the outline, for circulation to members of the Commission within approximately four weeks.

The members of the Commission expressed their appreciation of the information and advice provided by Mr. Berncastle.


The meeting rose at 5.40 p.m.


Document in PDF format

Rédaction d'un projet de rapport - 338e séance de CCNUP (New York) - Compte rendu Français