Home || Permalink


4 April 1963

Original: English


Held at Headquarters, New York,
on Thursday, 14 March 1963, at 3.30 p.m.

1. Adoption of the Agenda
2. Consideration of paragraph 2 of resolution 1856 (XVII) of 20 December 1962
3. Consideration of current problems in connexion with the release operation of blocked accounts and safe custody items
4. Other business

Chairman: Mr. ASIROGLUTurkey
Members:Mr. ARNAUDFrance
Mr. PLIMPTONUnited States of America
Also Present:Mr. BLAKEUnited States of America
Secretariat:Mr. GAILLARDActing Principal Secretary
Mr. JARVISLand Expert

1. Adoption of the Agenda

Consideration of paragraph 2 of resolution 1856 (XVII) of 20 December 1962

Mr. PLIMPTON (United States of America) declared that his Government planned to undertake quiet diplomatic talks with the interested parties — as a member of the Conciliation Commission but not purporting to act in its behalf. He would be pleased informally to keep his French and Turkish colleagues informed regarding his Government’s activities. Their comments or suggestions would be welcome at any time. His Government felt that this might be as good as any method of dealing with the request contained in paragraph 2.

Mr. ARNAUD (France) stated that although the situation did not appear more favourable than last year, his delegation felt that it was not necessary to have hope before making an effort and said it had no objection to soundings being undertaken through diplomatic contacts with the interested Governments.

He took note of the fact that while acting as a member of the Commission, the United States would not make démarches in the name of the Commission. His delegation likewise understood that the démarches would have the essential purpose of obtaining the views of the interested Governments and were not intended to exercise any pressure upon them to make them accept one or another preconceived plan.

The French representative added that his delegation would be grateful for the information promised to the Commission on the results of the conversations to be undertaken. It could only hope for success and, in case there was a possibility of contributing to it, his delegation would not fail to do so.

The CHAIRMAN, speaking as the representative of Turkey, declared that his Government had studied the possibility of implementing paragraph 2 of resolution 1856 (XVII). It had concluded that it could be implemented in three ways: (1) Each member of the Commission could approach the interested parties and try to find a common ground for solving the problems; (2) One member of the Commission could act on its behalf and approach the parties with a view to finding a solution; or (3) One member might act as a member of the Commission in order to try to discover the possibilities of achieving an understanding between the interested parties.

If any member were willing to undertake such action on behalf of the Commission, the Turkish Government felt that such a member should act within the framework of the Conciliation Commission and keep it informed of steps taken on its behalf and of any further steps that members might be willing to take.

He was glad to hear that the United States was willing to act as a member of the Commission but not on behalf of the Commission. His Government would be grateful if the United States were able to find a happy solution to the problem. It would do its best to facilitate the difficult task that the United States was willing to undertake.

The Turkish representative inquired what procedure the United States intended to follow.

Mr. PLIMPTON (United States of America) stated that the talks would take place through the American ambassadors at the capitals of the interested parties.

The CHAIRMAN, speaking as the representative of Turkey, presumed that after the contacts the United States representative would inform the Commission of the steps the parties would be willing to take.

MR. PLIMPTON (United States of America) replied certainly but said that he knew that his colleagues would not expect day-to-day reports. Members would be kept in touch informally, and if anything important developed, he would inform and consult with them.

3. Consideration of current problems in connexion with the release operation for blocked accounts and safe custody items. (See memoranda of the Acting Principal Secretary dated 2 February and 11 and 12 March, 1963)

The CHAIRMAN expressed agreement with the suggestion, advanced by the Principal Secretary (page 2, paragraph 2 of his memorandum dated 11 March 1963) of a formal letter to the Permanent Mission of the UAR regarding the two outstanding problems. He asked if the Principal Secretary had any further relevant information.

Mr. GAILLARD (Acting Principal Secretary) replied that he had just had a brief chat with Mr. Mohamed Riad of the UAR mission. Mr. Riad had felt sure that the apparent “acquiescence” of the UAR authorities and their authorization to the Bank of Alexandria to process applications received, noted in the memorandum of 26 February 1963, was not the result of Mr. Gaillard’s previous talk with him. No reply had yet been received from Cairo to the documentation which he had transmitted somewhat belatedly. In the circumstances Mr. Gaillard believed some further delay was advisable in order to permit of a reply before the Commission undertook to send any formal letter. If a reply proved unsatisfactory, he thought such a letter would be necessary.

The CHAIRMAN agreed that a farther delay was appropriate under the circumstances described.

Mr. GAILLARD (Acting Principal Secretary) added that informal contacts in New York with Mr. Riveran, former Israeli Property Custodian, had been helpful in ironing out details of the current blocked account release operation. The scheme seemed on the verge finally of producing cheques for the eligible applicants who had applied.

Mr. PLIMPTON (United States of America) asked what documentation Mr. Riad had forwarded to Cairo.

Mr. GAILLARD (Acting Principal Secretary) replied that the documentation consisted of letters and extracts from CCP records which summarized fully the history of the two outstanding problems — that concerning the UAR’s non-assent to publicity for the current blocked account operation and that concerning the UAR’s non-concurrence in the implementation of the 1955 scheme for transmitting blocked safe custody items to their owners in the UAR and in Gaza. The Commission had never received a formal statement of the UAR position. In his opinion an effort should be made this year, prior to the next Progress Report date, to clear up these long-pending matters which otherwise might cause this ten-year-old Commission enterprise to drag on embarrassingly.

The meeting rose at 4.2 p.m.

Document in PDF format

Comptes bloqués des réfugiés Arabes - 355e Séance de CCNUP (New York)- Compte rendu Français