SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FIRST MEETING
held in Lausanne, on Friday,
9 September 1949, at.4 p.m.
In the section “Territorial settlement”, the CHAIRMAN requested the insertion, at the end of paragraph 5 of each note, of the following sentence: It is in this light that the Commission has always interpreted the word “adjustments”.
Mr. ROCKWELL favoured re-instatement of the sentence deleted from the original draft of the Israeli note, concerning the establishment of good neighbour relations between Israel and the Arab States. He also felt that that sentence should be paralleled, in the Arab note, by a statement that exaggerated territorial demands by the Arab States against Israel would not contribute to the re-establishment of normal conditions.
The CHAIRMAN was of the opinion that re-instatement of the original sentence in the Israeli note would only antagonise the Israeli delegation without furthering the Commission’s purpose concerning the territorial settlement, which was already made fully clear throughout the document. He would prefer a sentence which could be inserted in the same form in both notes, such as the following variation of Mr. Rockwell’s proposal: “…… and that no excessive territorial demands should be allowed to impede the realisation of that objective.
The Commission approved the Chairman’s suggestions and certain minor drafting amendments, and agreed that the notes would be approved in final form at a meeting the following day and transmitted to the delegations at a meeting on Monday.
Secretariat Working Papers on compensation and conservatory measures (W/24 and W/25)
With regard to the question of the Arab blocked account the PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that the Arab expert was expected to arrive the following Mondays but that unfortunately the Israeli expert was at present unavailable. He did not feel that any work could be accomplished by the Mixed Committee during the following week.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Mixed Committee should hold one further meeting early the next week and determine the procedure to be adopted for its future work. On the question of separated families, he noted that the General Committee had been very firm and outspoken with the Arab delegations on the matter; he proposed therefore that the Commission, in a letter to both parties, should point out that after a month’s negotiation no practical results had as yet been achieved, and should state that it was issuing formal instructions to the Principal Secretary to make inquiries upon his arrival in Jerusalem. He asked the Chairman of the General Committee to prepare a draft of such a letter for approval by the Commission.
Concerning the orange groves, he noted that no reply had as yet been received from the Israeli Government on the proposal to establish a mixed working group, and approved the suggestion of the Chairman of the General Committee that the Committee should hold a further meeting the following day with the Israeli delegation on the subject. At that meeting it should be stated categorically that if the Commission did not receive a favourable reply on the question from the Government of Israel, the Commission would consider itself obliged, in view of its heavy responsibility in the matters to note clearly in its report to the Secretary-General the refusal of Israel to accept the mixed working group and, consequently, its responsibility as regards the loss of the groves. The Commission’s intention to make such a report should, moreover, be communicated in writing to the Israeli delegation before the suspension of the meetings.
Publication of the draft Instrument for Jerusalem and communication of it to the Arab and Israeli delegations.
The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that the draft instructions for Jerusalem would be published in New York on Tuesday, 13 September, and that it had just been transmitted to the Arab and Israeli delegations with a covering letter requesting that it be held strictly confidential until the date of publication. The following Tuesday a press conference on the subject would be held in Lausanne, at which the Commission’s Legal Advisor, also Secretary of the Committee on Jerusalem, would be authorised to answer questions.
Mr. ROCKWELL noted that the Commission had agreed to publish a press release upon the suspension of the meetings. He now submitted the draft text of a proposed preliminary conmuniqué setting forth certain of the questions put by the Commission to the parties, with their replies and the Commission conclusions.
The CHAIRMAN and Mr. YALCIN felt that certain parts of the proposed text were too specific and positive, especially as regards the Syrian position on the acceptance of refugees, and the extension of Israeli citizenship to returning refugees.
After some discussion, it was agreed, that the Press Officer would prepare a draft communiqué, embodying some of the points covered by Mr. Rockwell’s text, in shorter form, to be issued in connection with and on the occasion of the visit of the Economic Survey Mission to Lausanne.
Nomination of United Nations Representatives in Jerusalem
The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that the Secretary-General had proposed, by telephone the preceding day, the name of Dr. Alberto Gonzalez-Fernandez as United Nations representative in Jerusalem. Dr. Gonzalez-Fernandez was a member of the diplomatic service of Colombia, with the rank of ambassador, and had been a representative to the United Nations since 1947; he had also been associated earlier with the Palestine question in the United Nations.
Mr. YALCIN, while approving the nomination, noted that the Secretary-General had been asked to submit a choice of several names.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Commission should announce the formal appointment as soon as official confirmation, of the nomination had been received by cable, an in any case no later than the following day.
The Commission approved the Chairman’s suggestion.
Document in PDF format
Règlement territorial, avoirs bloqués, statut de Jérusalem – 101e séance de la CCNUP – Compte rendu Français