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

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information
31 December 1961
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED NATIONS

1961

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK

THE PALESTINE QUESTION

COMPLAINT BY JORDAN

On 1 April 1961, Jordan complained to the Security Council that a military parade which Israel planned to hold on 20 April in the Israel-occupied part of Jerusalem would be an act of military provocation and a violation of the General Armistice Agreement and that this would be in defiance of a decision taken by the Mixed Armistice Commission on 20 March 1961 to the effect that a dress rehearsal for that parade, held on 16-17 March 1961, had been a breach of the Armistice Agreement. The parade contemplated for 20 April would endanger international peace and security.

On 2 April 1961, Israel replied that the allegation of danger to peace and security was without a vestige of foundation, Jordan already having received full assurance about the purely ceremonial character of the parade.

The Security Council considered the complaint by Jordan on 6, 10 and 11 April, the representatives of Israel and Jordan taking part in the discussion without the right to vote.

Reviewing the developments leading to the Mixed Armistice Commission's decision of 20 March, Jordan's representative stressed the following points: (a) no heavy armaments of any kind, for any purpose and under any condition, were allowed into the Jerusalem sector in accordance with the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement; (b) Israel's views about the parade had been put before the Mixed Armistice Commission and the Chief of Staff and had been rejected; and (c) the Mixed Armistice Commission had considered that the bringing of armaments into the city of Jerusalem would be a breach of the General Armistice Agreement, and it had condemned Israel for that.

The representative of Israel maintained that the root of the continuing difficulties was that the Arab countries, contrary to their obligations under the United Nations Charter, the resolutions of the United Nations and the General Armistice Agreement, had refused to make peace with Israel. This was not the first time that equipment prohibited by the General Armistice Agreement had been brought into the Jerusalem area for ceremonial purposes. On numerous previous special occasions in the past, both Israel and Jordan had conducted military parades on either side of the line in Jerusalem. He suggested that it was open to serious doubt whether the ceremonial parading of military equipment without ammunition, and thus incapable of military use, constituted even a "formal breach" of the General Armistice Agreement.

On 10 April, Ceylon and the United Arab Republic submitted a draft resolution, whereby the Council would: (1) endorse the Mixed Armistice Commission's decision of 20 March 1961 and (2) urge Israel to comply with that decision.

Most speakers in the debate stressed the importance of upholding the Mixed Armistice Commission's decision and the need for strict compliance with the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement.

On 11 April 1961, the United States proposed an additional clause for the two-power proposal whereby the Council would ask the members of the Mixed Armistice Commission to co-operate so as to ensure compliance with the General Armistice Agreement.

On 11 April, the Council adopted this amendment by 7 votes to 0, with 4 abstentions. It then approved the draft resolution, as amended, by 8 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions.

On 17 April 1961, the Secretary-General circulated a report on compliance with the Security Council's resolution. He stated that on 11 April he had, through the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), asked for a reply from the Israel Government on compliance with the terms of the resolution. On 14 April, a further request for a direct reply was made to the Israel authorities, this request being necessary because of Israel's response to the first request of the UNTSO to the effect that discussions on the resolution were taking place in New York with the Secretary-General.

Meanwhile, on 13 April 1961, Israel asked for an emergency meeting of the Mixed Armistice Commission to consider its complaint about an alleged concentration of heavy military equipment in the Jordanian part of Jerusalem, which, it charged, was contrary to the General Armistice Agreement. Israel's representative regarded the clause in the Security Council's resolution asking for the co-operation of members of the Mixed Armistice Commission as a basis for the Commission to consider the question of the parade.

In his report, the Secretary-General observed that an examination of the Security Council's discussions indicated that this interpretation was incorrect. The clause in the Council's resolution requesting the co-operation of the Commissions members looked only to the future and was in no sense intended to derogate from the meaning of the clause which urged Israel to comply with the Commission's resolution of 20 March 1961 and which was fully valid. The Secretary-General further stated that the Mixed Armistice Commission's consideration of Israel's complaint against Jordan, even if confirmed, could not release Israel from the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Security Council's resolutions. In conclusion, the Secretary-General said he had found it necessary to report to the Security Council that there had been no response so far on the part of the Israel Government on its attitude on the clause in the Council's resolution urging that Israel comply with the Commission's decision of 20 March 1961.

On 19 April 1961, the Secretary-General circulated a report by the Chief of Staff of UNTSO on the emergency meetings of the Israel-Jordan Mixed Armistice Commission held from 17 to 19 April to consider the Israel complaint referred to above and a Jordan verbal complaint submitted on 14 April (see below).

In regard to Israel's complaint, the Chief of Staff reported that an UNTSO investigation in the Jordanian part of Jerusalem had produced no evidence of any equipment beyond that allowed in the General Armistice Agreement. Nor were there any indications of equipment having been placed in position recently.

He also reported that the Israel delegation had made a number of new proposals at the Mixed Armistice Commission's emergency meeting of 17-19 April. One was that the Commission decide to strike off all the outstanding complaints (some 3,800) on its agenda. When this proposal failed to be adopted, the Israel delegation submitted a new proposal calling for meetings of a sub-committee to study "ways and means of disposing of all outstanding complaints." Israel also proposed that the Commission "decide that its members are bound to co-operate so as to ensure that all the articles of the General Armistice Agreement will be complied with in full," and also that the Commission call for "direct negotiations between the two parties to work out ways and measures to bring about that result."

The Chairman abstained in the vote on Israel's proposals, and Jordan voted against most of them. On the morning of 19 April Israel walked out of the meeting.

The Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission then notified both parties that he would convene the Commission in emergency meeting on the afternoon of that day to discuss a Jordanian complaint of 14 April about the concentration of troops and heavy equipment on the Israel side of Jerusalem in excess of the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement.

During the investigation, the Israel representatives again gave the assurance that Israel had no hostile intentions in holding a military parade in Jerusalem on 20 April and that Israel intended to maintain the tranquillity prevailing along the Armistice Demarcation Line.

On 19 April, in the absence of the Israel delegation, the Mixed Armistice Commission adopted a resolution submitted by Jordan which stated, among other things, that, on or about 12/14 April 1961, Israel had concentrated a large amount of heavy military equipment on the Israel side of the Armistice Demarcation Line. The resolution also called on the Israel authorities to withdraw forthwith such heavy arms and equipment from the Israel side of the Jerusalem area.

REPORT OF CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE

On 23 October 1961, the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine submitted its nineteenth progress report which covered the period between 12 November 1960 and 13 October 1961. The Commission stated that on 9 May 1961 it had decided to appoint a special representative to explore the precise views of the parties as to what action might usefully be undertaken in the implementation of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 1948. (This paragraph envisaged a choice between repatriation or compensation for those Palestine refugees who did wish to return to their home.) The Commission had done so in pursuance of Assembly resolution 1604 (XV) of 21 April 1961, 1/ which, among other things, asked the Commission to secure the implementation of paragraph 11 of resolution 194 (III) and to report to the Assembly thereon later in 1961.

On 21 August 1961, the Commission informed he Secretary-General that it had decided to appoint Joseph E. Johnson as its special representative and that he would visit the Middle East to explore with the host Governments and with Israel practical means of seeking progress on the Palestine Arab refugee problem pursuant to resolution 1604 (XV). After his visit, Dr. Johnson informed the Commission that high officials of the host countries and of Israel had expressed the view that it might be possible to take practical steps with regard to the refugee problem without prejudice to the positions taken by the host Governments on other aspects of the Palestine question. The Commission hoped that it would be able, in the light of Dr. Johnson's report, to make suggestions in the near future on methods of procedure that might lead to progress on the refugee question. The Conciliation Commission also reported that its work on the identification and valuation of the Arab refugees' immovable property holdings in Israel was nearing completion. It considered that the methods and techniques evolved in the programme were valid and that the estimates should serve as a fundamental basis for any compensation arrangement

Commenting on the release of Arab refugees, bank accounts and safe deposits blocked in Israel the Commission said it had been informed, on 7 November 1960, that the Government of Israel and Barclays Bank had concluded an agreement whereby Barclays Bank would deal with claims to those accounts by procedures similar to those employed in previous release operations. The Commission had secured the concurrence of the Governments of Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Republic to this plan, and it had also approached the Syrian Government about it. (See also pp. 157-59.)


OTHER COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL

On 13 March 1961, the United Arab Republic sent a letter to the President of the Security Council asking that there be circulated to all Council members the text of a decision taken on 7 March 1961 by the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission about an attack by two Israel aircraft which had penetrated United Arab Republic airspace and machine --gunned grazing animals belonging to Bedouins.


DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

COMPLAINT BY JORDAN

SECURITY COUNCIL, meetings 947-949.

S/4776. Letter of 30 March 1961 from Permanent Representative of Jordan concerning decision adopted on 20 March 1961 by Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission.

S/4777, S/4783. Letters of 1 and 3 April 1961 from Permanent Representative of Jordan.

S/4778. Letter of 2 April 1961 from Permanent Representative of Israel.

S/4784. Ceylon and United Arab Republic: draft resolution.

S/4785. United States, amendment to draft resolution, S/4784.

S/4788. Resolution, as submitted by Ceylon and United Arab Republic, S/4784, and as amended by United States, S/4785, adopted by Council on 11 April 1961, meeting 949, by 8 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions.

"The Security Council

"Having considered the complaint submitted on 1 April 1961 by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (document S/4777),

"Noting the decision of the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission on 20 March 1961 (document S/4776),

"1. Endorses the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission of 20 March 1961;

"2. Urges Israel to comply with this decision;

"3. Requests the members of the Mixed Armistice Commission to co-operate so as to ensure that the General Armistice Agreement will be complied with."

S/4792 and Corr.1 and Add.1. Report of Secretary-General dated 17 and 19 April 1961 respectively.

REPORT OF CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE

A/4921 and Add.1. Progress report of United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, and report of Special Representative, dated 13 October and 24 November 1961 respectively.

OTHER COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL

S/4770. Letter of 13 March 1961 from Permanent Representative of United Arab Republic concerning decision adopted on 7 March 1961 by Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission.

S/4843. Letter of 23 June 1961 from Permanent Representative of Israel.

ASSISTANCE TO PALESTINE REFUGEES

Assistance to Palestine refugees continued to be given during 1961 by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees n the Near East (UNRWA). The provision of such aid was also considered by the General Assembly at its sixteenth session.

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF UNRWA

In his annual report to the General Assembly's sixteenth session--1 July 1960 to 30 June 1961--the Director of UNRWA reviewed the current conditions of the refugees and progress on the three-year (1961-63) programme for assisting refugee youth which he had placed before the General Assembly the previous year; he also emphasized that "the Palestine refugee problem continues to grow even larger and more complex."

The report pointed out that UNRWA operations were financed by voluntary governmental contributions, currently amounting to $34 million annually. The per caput assistance for the refugees had averaged less than $30 per year over the past 11 years. The Director of UNRWA appealed to Governments to provide an additional $9.8 million over the next two years to complete the three-year programme.

He announced that he would also seek another $1 million a year in 1962 and 1963 from extra-budgetary sources, to be used for scholarships of $500 each to enable young refugees to receive vocational training.

In requesting increased financial support, he explained that the Agency had drawn heavily on its working capital during the past year to accelerate the three-year programme. The additional funds were needed for two important aspects of the Agency's work: for relief, which had been purposely held at prevailing per caput levels in order to maximize expenditure on training; and for essential improvements in the general education system.

Describing UNRWA's activities in the period under review, he said that contributions of about $4.5 million, mostly from World Refugee Year sources, had enabled the Agency to "press vigorously ahead" in expanding its vocational training programme. The Agency's aim was to graduate some 2,000 young refugees annually from the vocational training centres, as compared with 300 in 1960.

Reviewing the Arab refugee problem as a whole, the Director of UNRWA stated that "the rehabilitation of the Palestine refugees has proved to be a much more difficult and a much longer-term task than was at first envisaged." No solution had evolved, he said, because none proposed had taken adequately into account "the deep feelings and aspirations of the people of the Middle East." The refugees continued to show "embitterment and resentment over the loss of their homes and homeland," he pointed out. They strongly demanded the right of choice between repatriation and compensation held out to them by the United Nations under paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 1948--a right which, he said, had never been implemented. (This paragraph provided, among other things, that refugees wishing to retain to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine was instructed, among other things, to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation.)

Of the original refugees, virtually every adult who in 1948 had a skill needed in the Arab world soon found a job, and these men and their families had been self-supporting ever since, the report explained. However, the 70-odd per cent of adults who had been farmers, shopkeepers, unskilled workers and herders came to areas already saturated with such persons and had little success in finding employment. Moreover, about 150,000 young men had grown to maturity as refugees since 1948. This was a particularly serious problem, the Director of UNRWA stressed, for in all probability they had already "missed for life" their opportunities to obtain specialized training. It was improbable, he said, that during the next decade or two there could be enough training schools to admit all who wanted to enter. In the resulting competition with adaptable and unmarried youth, the more mature men would not be able to gain admission.

"Even if by good fortune," the Director of UNRWA went on, "a satisfactory political solution to the problem were found soon, the complicated socio-economic aspects of the problem which now exist would take some years to untangle." He warned that for some time to come there might well be "no practical alternative" to continuing to provide relief services and education for refugees.

UNRWA OPERATIONS

Statistics: The number of registered refugees in the period under review rose by about 30,000 (of whom 4,500 were added to the ration rolls), bringing the total, as of 30 June 1961, to 1,151,024. There were 630,725 refugees in Jordan, 621,125 in the Gaza Strip, 140,201 in Lebanon and 118,973 in Syria. The number of refugees living in official camps rose to 440,000--an increase of 24,000 due to natural increase and new admissions.

Food: The Agency devoted nearly 40 per cent of its budget to buying and distributing basic rations for 870,266 refugees, providing each with 1,500 calories in summer and 1,600 in winter. A supplementary feeding and milk distribution programme was directed towards children, pregnant and nursing women, tuberculosis patients and others vulnerable to malnutrition.

Health: Health records were satisfactory, and there were no major epidemics. UNRWA operated or subsidized 100 health centres and mobile clinics and 2,062 hospital beds.

Education: During the 1960-61 school year, 187,680 refugee pupils benefited from the Agency's education programme. A rapidly increasing number of students received secondary education through grants to Governments and private schools. A few gifted students were awarded university scholarships.

Social Welfare: The Agency's social welfare services tackled two major problems: low refugee morale and the relief of individual hardship cases. A youth activities programme was launched in April 1960, with the co-operation of the World Alliance of Y.M.C.A.'s, to reduce the effects on youth of idleness in camps resulting from unemployment.

Individual Assistance: A new policy on individual assistance was formulated, and the Agency planned a programme of combined grants and loans which it hoped to implement in co-operation with the Government of Jordan, as well as a housing programme which would enable the refugees who had some income and a plot of land on which to build a house.

Clothing: Each needy refugee received 1.7 kilogrammes of used clothes donated by voluntary organizations. UNRWA paid $200,000 in ocean freight to import this clothing.

CONSIDERATION BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Introducing his report in the Assembly's Special Political Committee, the Director of UNRWA appealed for more financial aid to the Agency. He felt that a continuation through some United Nations medium of the services provided by UNRWA was essential to the presentation of stability and peace in the Middle East and in the world, pending a full and satisfactory solution to the Palestine refugee problem.

The Special Political Committee also had before it a progress report by Joseph E. Johnson, whom the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine had sent to the Middle East in September 1961 as its Special Representative. Among other things, Dr. Johnson indicated that the Governments of host countries and of Israel had expressed a willingness, though with "much reservation and skepticism," to consider a step-by-step process that might lead to progress on the refugee issue without prejudice to the positions of the respective Governments on the other related issues. (For further details, see above, p. 154.)

During the discussion in the Special Political Committee, representatives of the Arab States maintained that it was for the United Nations, which had been instrumental in creating the plight of the Palestinian people, to find the means to ensure that full effect was given to its resolution on the repatriation of the refugees. First, it should see that the machinery set up for application of paragraph 11 of resolution 194 (III) was suitable, impartial and effective; second, it should establish provisional machinery to ensure the welfare of the refugees and to safeguard their property rights. They disagreed with the views which the Conciliation Commission's Special Representative had expressed in his report on the grounds that the Commission's instructions to him were not consistent with General Assembly resolutions. The Special Representative's instructions should have been, essentially, to begin negotiations with the Israel authorities, who were responsible for the implementation of paragraph 11 of resolution 194 (III). The main failure of the Conciliation Commission was that it had misinterpreted that paragraph.

On the question of negotiations between the Arab States and Israel, the Arab representatives took the position that negotiations on the rights of the people of Palestine could be entered into only by the Palestine Arabs themselves. The adoption of the following measures were advocated as preliminary steps towards a final settlement: the appointment of a custodian or administrator for the property of the refugees; reconsideration of the principles underlying the existence of the Conciliation Commission, which might include discussion of the possibility of either maintaining or abolishing the Commission, enlarging it or replacing its present members by others who were not committed to the cause of Israel; and consideration of measures to be applied against the Government of Israel if it persisted in its refusal to allow the decisions of the United Nations to be carried out.

The representative of Israel declared that a peace treaty could be signed between Israel and its Arab neighbours to allay Arab fears and to define the political frontiers between them; a non-aggression pact could be signed; disarmament arrangements, with mutual inspection and control could be entered into; the borders could be guaranteed by the United Nations or the great powers. The Arab States, however, had rejected these proposals, because it was not Israel which wanted to occupy Arab territory, but the Arab States which wanted to occupy Israel. While it had willingly co-operated with the Special Representative of the Conciliation Commission, the Israel Government nevertheless had some reservations about the Commission's report. Israel continued to believe in negotiations between the Arab States and Israel, with or without the help of the Conciliation Commission. The proposed changes in the Commission's composition could serve no useful purpose so long as the desire for conciliation was absent on the part of the Arab States.

No United Nations resolution, added Israel's representative, demanded the immediate, total and unconditional repatriation of refugees into Israel. On the other hand, several Assembly resolutions had called for negotiations on the peaceful settlement of all outstanding questions between Israel and the Arab States. Israel believed that the future of the Arab refugees lay in their resettlement in the Arab countries, and Israel was ready to pay compensation for property abandoned by the refugees, even before a general peace settlement was concluded, provided that the funds made available were used for the general settlement of the dispute. Israel would, however, also demand compensation for property of its citizens confiscated by the Arab Governments.

The United States representative firmly supported the provisions for repatriation, resettlement and compensation set forth in paragraph 11 of resolution 194 (III) and hoped that they would be implemented before long. His delegation had welcomed the new attempt to settle the refugee situation by the Conciliation Commission's appointment of a Special Representative to undertake an exploratory mission with the Governments concerned. He opposed any proposals or action that might prejudice the results of that initiative. Several other representatives also welcomed the Conciliation Commission's appointment of a Special Representative.

The USSR representative was among those who maintained that the obvious solution to the problem lay in carrying out the Assembly's resolutions, particularly resolution 194 (III). Everything indicated that the Conciliation Commission, which had never come forward with a practical proposal of any kind, was bent on confining its attention to purely secondary matters. The lack of progress towards a settlement of the dispute was primarily due to political factors and, in particular, to the stubborn refusal of the Government of Israel to comply with the General Assembly's resolutions.

The representative of France was in favour of proposals aimed at providing continued support for the refugees, keeping open the possibilities of conciliation by inviting the Commission to continue its work and obtaining the active co-operation of the parties to the dispute with the Commission. The representative of Pakistan suggested that if there was any doubt about the property rights of refugees the question could be referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion.

Several representatives from African and Asian States considered that the membership of the Conciliation Commission should be reconstituted to enable it to carry out its tasks more effectively.

The representative of Cyprus, supported by the representative of New Zealand, repeated a suggestion made by their delegations and others at previous sessions that Israel should take a first step by repatriating a token number of refugees and paying compensation to an equal number of refugees opting for resettlement in the Arab countries.

Two draft resolutions were voted on in the Special Political Committee on 19 December 1961.

The first was submitted by the United States. By the preamble to this text, the Assembly would, among other things, note "with deep regret" that the terms of paragraph 11 of resolution 194 (III) had not been put into effect, and that little progress had been made in the programme endorsed by the Assembly for reintegration of the refugees either by repatriation or resettlement. By the operative part of this text, the Assembly would: (1) request the Conciliation Commission to intensify its efforts to secure implementation of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194 (III), which provided for repatriation or compensation to the refugees, and to urge the Arab host Governments and Israel to co-operate in this matter; (2) ask the Conciliation Commission to intensify its work on the identification and evaluation of refugee immovable properties in Palestine as of l5 May 1948 and to complete the work by 1 September 1962, if possible; and (3) direct attention to UNRWA's "precarious" financial position, and urge non-contributing Governments to contribute and contributing Governments to give more.

The second text voted on was sponsored by the following 16 Members: the Central African Republic, Chile, Congo (Brazzaville), Costa Rica, El Salvador, Gabon, Guatemala, Haiti, the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Madagascar, the Netherlands, Niger, Sierra Leone, Upper Volta and Uruguay.

By this text (a revised version), the Assembly would, among other things, renew its appeal to the Governments concerned "to undertake direct negotiations--with the assistance of the Conciliation Commission for Palestine, if they so desire--with a view to finding a solution, acceptable to all the parties concerned, for all the questions in dispute between them, particularly the question of the Arab refugees."

Afghanistan, Indonesia and Pakistan submitted an amendment to add two paragraphs to the operative part of the United States draft resolution. By these new paragraphs, the Assembly would decide that the Conciliation Commission should be composed of five member, to be proposed by the President of the Assembly for the Assembly's approval before the end of the session. The reconstituted Conciliation Commission would then be asked to take measures for the protection of the rights, property and interests of the Palestine Arab refugees.

The amendment to increase the size of the Conciliation Commission for Palestine to five members was adopted by a vote of 47 to 27, with 24 abstentions. The amendment to ask the reconstituted Commission to take measures for the protection of the rights, property and interests of the Palestine Arab refugees was adopted by a vote of 42 to 36, with 20 abstentions. The United States draft resolution, as amended, was adopted by the Special Political Committee by a roll-call vote of 74 to 1, with 23 abstentions.

The 16-power draft resolution was rejected by a roll-call vote of 44 against, 34 in favour, with 20 abstentions.

At a plenary meeting of the Assembly on 20 December 1961, the clause to increase the size of the Commission failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority, having received a vote, by roll-call, of 44 to 29, with 25 abstentions. The clause asking the Commission to take measures to protect the rights, property and interests of the Palestine Arab refugees also failed to be adopted for the same reason, having received, by roll-call, 40 votes in favour to 37 against, with 21 abstentions.

The amended text (that is, as originally presented in the Special Political Committee by the United States), was then adopted by the Assembly by a vote of 62 to 0, with 37 abstentions, as resolution 1725 (XVI).

PLEDGES AND PAYMENTS FOR 1961-62

During the financial (calendar) year 1961, 44 countries and territories pledged the equivalent of $34,147,284 for UNRWA's activities. By 31 December 1961, the equivalent of $33,336,582 had been received in payments of these pledges, as well as $1,356,602 from pledges of previous years. At the end of the year, pledges still unpaid amounted to $810,702 for 1961 and $332,349 for prior years.

As of December 1961, UNRWA had received pledges of approximately $20,900,000 for 1962.

PLEDGES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNRWA
FOR YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1961
(Showing equivalent in U.S. dollars of pledges
and contributions in cash, kind and services)


Pledging Contributions
Government Pledge Received

Australia 201,600 201,600
Austria 2,000 2,000
Belgium 30,000 30,000
Cambodia 571 571
Canada 2,069,500 2,069,500
Ceylon 1,000 -
Cyprus 560 560
Denmark 43,440 21,720
Federation of Malaya 1,500 -
France 182,209 182,209
Gaza Authorities 124,721 124,721
Germany, Federal
Republic of 250,000 250,000
Ghana 3,000 -
Greece 15,000 -
Holy See 10,965 10,965
India 21,008 -
Iran 6,000 -
Ireland 14,062 14,062
Italy 80,000 -
Japan 10,000 10,000
Jordan 98,280 98,280
Kuwait 131,250 131,250
Lebanon 40,125 40,125
Liberia 5,000 5,000
Luxembourg 2,000 -
Monaco 1,224 1,224
Morocco 40,750 36,750
Netherlands 69,061 69,061
New Zealand 140,000 140,000
Norway 42,000 42,000
Pakistan 20,953 20,953
Saudi Arabia 100,000 100,000
Sudan 2,870 -
Sweden 57,915 57,915
Switzerland 34,884 -
Syria 74,439 74,439
Tunisia 2,000 -
Turkey 5,000 5,000
United Arab Republic 418,397 418,397
United Kingdom 5,400,000 5,400,000
United States* 24,350,000 23,731,280
Viet-Nam 2,500 2,500
Yugoslavia 40,000 40,000

Total 34,147,284 33,336,582

*The United States pledge for the fiscal period 1 July 1960-30 June 1961 came to $23,500,000, and for the fiscal period 1 July 1961-30 June 1962 it amounted to $24,700,000. In both cases it was payable on a matching basis not to exceed 70 per cent of contributions paid by all Governments. The Agency for its own accounting purposes, arbitrarily allocated these pledges between its 1960, 1961 and 1962 fiscal years.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

GENERAL ASSEMBLY--16TH SESSION
Special Political Committee, meetings 306-324.
Plenary Meeting 1086.

A/4861. Annual Report of Director of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, 1 July 1960-30 June 1961.

A/4921 and Add.l and Add.l/Corr.l. Nineteenth Progress Report of United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (12 November 1960-13 October 1961).

A/SPC/58 and Add.1. Letters of 9 October 1961 and of 2 November 1961 from representatives of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Republic and Yemen requesting that a Palestinian Arab delegation composed of 10 persons be heard by Special Political Committee.

A/SPC/L.79 and Corr.1, 2. United States: draft resolution, as amended by Afghanistan, Indonesia and Pakistan (A/SPC/L.81 and Corr.l), adopted by Special Political Committee on 19 December 1961, meeting 324, by roll-call vote of 74 to 1 with 23 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Cameroun, Canada, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Leopoldville), Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Federation of Malaya, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Against: Israel.

Abstaining: Belgium, Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Thailand, Togo, Venezuela.

A/SPC/L.79/Rev.1. United States: revised draft resolution.

A/SPC/L.81 and Corr.1. Afghanistan, Indonesia Pakistan: amendments to United States draft resolution, A/SPC/L.79.

A/SPC/64. Statement of financial implications of draft resolution and amendment (A/SPC/L.79/ Rev.1 and A/SPC/L.81).

A/SPC/L.80. Central African Republic, Chile, Congo (Brazzaville), Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Madagascar, Nether lands, Sierra Leone, Togo, Upper Volta, Uruguay: draft resolution.

A/SPC/L.80/Rev.1 and Corr.1. Revised draft resolution proposed by sponsors of A/SPC/L.80 (except Togo) and also by Gabon and Niger, rejected by Special Political Committee on 19 December 1961 meeting 324, by roll-call vote of 44 against to 34 in favour, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroun, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Congo (Brazzaville), Costa Rica, Dahomey, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Israel, Ivory Coast, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Sierra Leone, Upper Volta, Uruguay.

Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Ceylon, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Federation of Malaya, Ghana, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Congo (Leopoldville), Ethiopia, France, Greece, Ireland, Mexico, Nepal, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Venezuela.

A/SPC/65. Text of resolution adopted by Special Political Committee.

A/5068. Report of Special Political Committee.

RESOLUTION 1725 (XVI), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/5068, and as amended in plenary, adopted by Assembly on 20 December 1961, meeting 1086, by roll-call vote of 62 to 0, with 37 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroun, Canada, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Leopoldville), Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dahomey, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Federation of Malaya, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Laos, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Albania, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Guinea, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

"The General Assembly,

"Recalling its resolutions 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949, 393 (V) and 394 (V) of 2 and 14 December 1950, 512 (VI) and 513 (VI) of 26 January 1952, 614 (VII) of 6 November 1952, 720 (VIII) of 27 November 1953, 818 (IX) of 4 December 1954, 916 (X) of 3 December 1955, 1018 (XI) of 28 February 1957, 1191 (XII ) of 12 December 1957, 1315 (XIII) of 12 December 1958, 1456 (XIV) of 9 December 1959 and 604 (XV) of 21 April 1961,

"Noting the annual report of the Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period 1 July 1960-30 June 1961,

"Noting with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) has not been effected, that no substantial progress has been made in the programme endorsed in paragraph 2 of resolution 513 (VI) for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern,

"1. Takes note of the efforts of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, pursuant to the request contained in General Assembly resolutions 1456 (XIV) and 1604 (XV), to secure the implementation of paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 194 (III), and:

"2. Directs attention to the precarious financial position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and urges non-contributing Governments to contribute, and contributing Governments to consider increasing their contributions, so that the Agency can carry out its essential programmes;

"3. Expresses its thanks to the Director and the staff of the Agency for their continued faithful efforts to provide essential services for the Palestine refugees, and to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees."

Notes

1/ See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 190-91.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter