Palestine question – GA debates General Cttee report – Verbatim record

SEVENTIETH PLENARY MEETING

Held in the General Assembly Hall at Flushing

Meadow, New York, on Thursday, 1 May 1947

at 11 a.m.

President:  Mr. O. ARANHA (Brazil).

The PRESIDENT:  The seventieth plenary meeting of the General Assembly is called to order.

9. Communication by the President  

The PRESIDENT (translated from French):  Before we begin the agenda of today's meeting, I should like to read you the telegram which I have received from H. E. Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, President of the first session of the General Assembly, and also the reply which I have sent him.

This is the text of my reply:

"H. E. Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, President of the Council of Ministers, Brussels, Belgium.

"In thanking you for the kind wishes you sent me when I received the presidency of the Assembly from the hands of Ambassador van Langenhove, I am very happy to convey to you the feelings of admiration of all those who had the privilege of taking part in the Assembly over which you so admirably presided.

10. Discussion of the report of the General Committee on the provisional agenda and the supplementary list (document A/298)

The PRESIDENT:  You have before you document A/298, which is the report of the General Committee on the provisional agenda and the supplementary list.

As you know, it is the function of the General Committee to consider the provisional agenda and the supplementary list and make recommendations thereon to us, the General Assembly.

At our last plenary meeting we referred the provisional agenda and the supplementary list to the General Committee for its consideration.  The General Committee has had five long meetings, during which full discussion took place on the two principal items before it.

I propose that we consider the report from the General Committee in two parts, giving our attention first to the recommendation on the provisional agenda. I will read the report of the General Committee:

"1. The General Committee having considered at its twenty-eighth meeting the item on the provisional agenda (document A/293) entitled 'Constituting and instructing a special committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of Palestine at the second regular session' submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom,

"Recommends that the item be placed on the agenda of the General Assembly and referred for consideration to the First Committee."

We have before us, therefore, the recommendation of the General Committee to include this item on the agenda of the General Assembly and to refer it to the First Committee.  Do I hear any objection to the inclusion of this item?

Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria):  There are two items which have been proposed by different States of the United Nations for insertion in the agenda of this special session.  One item was presented by the Government of the United Kingdom as the mandatory Power in Palestine.

The item presented by the Government of the United Kingdom asked the General Assembly to make recommendations on the future government of Palestine at the next regular session to be held in September.  At the same time, they promised in their request that the United Kingdom Government would submit to the General Assembly a detailed report on the exercise of the mandate during the last twenty-seven years.  In addition, they also asked or proposed that the General Assembly institute and instruct a committee of inquiry to prepare the subject mentioned above for consideration at the next session of the General Assembly; that is, the recommendations as to the future government of Palestine.

The Syrian Government did not acquiesce in this request to confine the discussions on the agenda of this session to this item alone.  We argued that the formation of the future government of Palestine should have but one phase, and there should be but one simple solution, namely the termination of the mandate and the recognition of the independence of Palestine.  Therefore we presented an additional item to that effect, which is so linked to the first one that it is very hard to have them discussed separately.

The United Kingdom Government, in its request, wished its item to stand alone, and the subject of discussion to be confined to that item.  It was proposed in the General Committee during its last meetings that both items should be discussed together because they are so intimately connected that they cannot be separated.  However, the General Committee adopted the first item before discussing the second item.  When the first item was adopted, we were afraid it might be taken for granted that this action would eliminate the second item as long as the majority of the Member States agreed to have this General Assembly meeting on the basis of the first item alone.  However, we pointed out that according to rule 18 of the provisional rules of procedure, other items might be inserted in addition if they were presented by a Member State within at least four days before the date fixed for the convening of the special General Assembly.

The United Kingdom Government also wanted to have recommendations made under Article 10 of the Charter. We reviewed Article 10 of the Charter.  We found it stated that the General Assembly has the power to make recommendations to Member States within the scope of the Charter and within the provisions of Article 12 of the Charter.  Article 12 of the Charter clearly states that when a subject is under discussion and consideration in the Security Council, the General Assembly shall have no capacity to make recommendations on that subject.  I understand from this connexion between Article 10 and Article 12 of the Charter and the insertion of that condition for making recommendations, that such recommendations could be made only in situations endangering international peace and security which are not under discussion in the Security Council.  In such situations, the General Assembly may make recommendations; that is, any State may apply to the General Assembly for recommendations instead of going to the Security Council in a complaint against another State in a special situation which may endanger international peace and security.

In this case there is nothing of the sort.  It is not my understanding that Article 10 would allow any State to come and ask advice of the General Assembly.  Recommendations are not being asked now, but rather advice as to the form of government we should form in Palestine.

For this reason I consider that in the first place, the first objection to this proposal of His Majesty's Government is that no recommendations can be given under Article 10 unless they are within the scope of the Charter. In that case, we pass to the second stage of this discussion and examine the scope of the Charter in the matter of mandated territories, because it may be said that Palestine is a mandated territory of the League of Nations, and as the League of Nations does not exist now, all its functions have passed to the General Assembly.  I accept that on the condition that such recommendations may be asked under the provisions of the Charter regarding mandated territories.

The PRESIDENT:  I am very sorry, but as President of this Assembly, my first duty is to put order into our business, and I bring to the notice of my colleague, the representative of Syria, the fact that in discussing the report of the General Committee we have to keep our business in accordance with our rules.  That means discussing only the report.  That does not mean any restriction on the open and full discussion of the matter after we have adopted the agenda.  I can assure all the representatives that I will allow the most open debate upon this matter, but I call on them and appeal to them, pointing out that we have no reason to anticipate that debate by discussing the substance now, when we are deciding about procedure.

I trust that my colleague, whom I admire very much, will respond to the appeal of the Chair.

Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria):  Mr. President, with all the respect which I have for the Chair, as also consideration for your wise administration of the Assembly and the General Committee, I am very sorry to say I do not think I have said anything contrary to our procedure or which is not in the first item now under discussion. I intend to oppose the insertion of this item in the agenda, and how can I do that unless I discuss the motives and the events which have led up to its being put on the agenda?  I am limiting my discussion and my speech to this point, that is, to my opposition of the insertion of this item on the agenda.  I am examining the basis of this item, the reasons and grounds for its insertion, and I am saying that–nothing else.  I did not discuss the matter of Palestine or anything further about the general position, but kept simply within the scope of the decision of the General Committee.

The General Committee has not made a final decision which cannot be opposed. It is simply a recommendation to the General Assembly for adoption or rejection.  I think the General Assembly and all Members of the General Assembly should be allowed to speak within these limits against the recommendation of the General Committee, and this is what I am doing.  I do not know if the President would agree with me on this point. I was not out of order, because I think I too know the procedure and the limits within which I must remain in the delivery of my arguments.

We have to return to the Charter to see to what extent Article 10 would allow the insertion of such an item.  Palestine is a mandated territory. That is true, and the mandated territories have been discussed in the Charter, and their scope is limited and fixed there.

What is the capacity of the General Assembly regarding mandated territories?  We turn to Chapter XII of the Charter.  All the Articles concerning mandated territories are there.  Let us look at Chapter XII of the Charter.  Is the United Nations entitled, in its General Assembly or its committees, to make recommendations to the mandatory Power, and to what extent and within what limits?

We find in Chapter XII of the Charter that all mandated territories should be left to the administration of the mandatory Power, but the mandatory Power is requested, and requested firmly, to expedite as soon as possible the submission to the General Assembly of a trusteeship agreement in order to pass that mandated territory from the mandate system to the trusteeship system, because the mandate cannot continue forever under the League of Nations, which does not exist, and it cannot continue without supervision from an international organ, so the General Assembly is obliged to see to it.  Recommendations would be made to the mandatory Power either to terminate the mandate and recognize the independence of the mandated territory, or submit a trusteeship agreement.  There is no other way in which the General Assembly could make recommendations.

The United Kingdom requested the Assembly to make recommendations concerning the future government of Palestine.  We do not believe there can be any other recommendation than the recognition of the independence of Palestine by the termination of the mandate. The request was put in such a vague form that we thought it would not be sufficient to bring about that proper conclusion.

That is all I will say, as I do not wish to disturb the President by speaking too much on this point.

Mr. JAMALI (Iraq):  Mr. President, I should like to assure you that I will speak briefly and that I will try to keep to the point.

If I indulge in the discussion it is merely because a part of our house is catching on fire.  That fire is spreading. We feel that fire is reaching the stage at which it must be put out.  That is why we feel the emergency and the urgency of this situation.  We think the forming of committees, postponements, and so on, and so forth, are not the matters to be considered here.

I believe the world today is suffering from a lack of regard for certain fundamental principles of international relations and human life.  We either lack these principles, or, if we do not lack them, we disregard them, or we are inconsistent in their application.  This is the essence of the trouble with the world today.

The question of Palestine, for which a committee is being proposed, is no exception to this state of affairs.  It is only a question resulting from a disregard of certain fundamental principles of human life; namely, the principle of self-determination, the principle of the right to live peacefully in one's own home, and the principle of self-government in a democratic way.

I submit that if these principles were to be recommended by the Assembly the issue would be settled.  If the consideration of these principles were put forward, there would be no problem in Palestine.  The problem of Palestine consists merely in a disregard of the fundamental principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations, a disregard of the very principles for which the mandate was made; it is the imposition of the will of one people over another without their consent.  The Balfour Declaration violated these fundamental principles.  It sold one peoples' land to another without their consent, without their knowledge. That is why we in Iraq believe that the question is very simple.  All that needs to be done is to refer it to the Political Committee, to the Legal Committee and to appeal to the conscience and good judgment of the world.

We feel that if these principles were to be applied immediately to Palestine, nothing could result but the termination of the mandate and the declaration of the independence of Palestine.  If we are to withhold the application of these principles, trouble will continue. The fire will continue.  I assure you that every new influx of immigrants is more petrol added to the fire.  I address this to my American friends.  They should know that those who preach more immigration into Palestine are adding more petrol to the fire.

If the Assembly decides to form a committee, they are free to do so.  Certainly the Assembly is entitled to get all the facts. We think all of the facts are available, and they are immediately available.  There is no need for committees and there is no need for postponements. All parties concerned are ready to present their views right away.  There is no party which lacks the material.

If the Assembly deems it necessary that a committee should be formed–our delegation does not think it is necessary–our delegation thinks that it is of vital importance that that committee should remember that nothing but the application of the principles of the United Nations Charter will settle the situation, namely, the application of the principles of self-determination, self-government and democratic procedure.  These are the only principles that can lead to peace in Palestine and in the Arab world.

The PRESIDENT:  I am very sorry, but up to now you have not spoken on the question of the report of the General Committee.  As President, I wish to hear all these marvellous speeches but I cannot allow them now.  It is not within my power to allow them now. I have rules to obey.

I make a last appeal to all the representatives to confine their discussion to the matter on our agenda.  That means they are to discuss the report received by the Assembly from the General Committee.

I recognize that you are fighting for your people.  I recognize that your cause is a sacred cause.  But we have rules and we have to obey them so that we may go ahead with our business.  I make a personal appeal to you and to all the representatives to confine the discussion to our agenda.  It is impossible for the Chair to allow a speaker to continue speaking for ten minutes before touching on the matter before us.

Mr. JAMALI (Iraq):  I should like to say that the remarks I have made are just an introduction to the conclusion I am coming to.  They are just the backbone or the basis on which I am going to express my views and give reasons for the way I am going to vote.

I should like to say that I sincerely hope that if the committee is to be appointed, it will abide by the principles of the United Nations, without which we shall never have peace in the Middle East, in the Arab world.  I am afraid that if this problem is not solved in the spirit of the United Nations, it will create a world problem.

My delegation does not believe there is a necessity for a committee at all. We believe the question can be dealt with here at this special session.  If it is dealt with here, and dealt with in the light of the principles of the United Nations Charter, our delegation is sure that the only conclusion that could be reached would be in accordance with the proposal made by my Government, namely, that for the termination of the mandate and the declaration of the independence of Palestine.

Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom):  I have asked your permission to speak on the understanding that the matter under discussion at the moment is the report of the General Committee of the Assembly to the Assembly, on the provisional agenda and the supplementary list.

I wish to make one point which I do not think has been made up to now.  The supplementary list contains items which, under rule 17 of the Assembly rules of procedure, are additional items. I think on this occasion, in these last few days, while the General Committee has been debating, it has found itself in a peculiar, perhaps even an unprecedented position.  I think additional items, in the past, have nearly always been new topics.  This additional item is not a new topic.  It, like the other item on the provisional agenda, deals with Palestine.  But it does propose an entirely different, I might say, a diametrically opposite procedure. I do wish to draw the attention of the Assembly to the fact that, in my submission at least, the Assembly could not possibly admit both these items to its agenda, because that really would make nonsense.

Our proposal, the proposal of the United Kingdom delegation, for the consideration of which this special Assembly was called, was for the purpose of constituting and instructing a special committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of Palestine at the second regular session.  The supplementary item calls for discussion, here and now, of the termination of the mandate over Palestine and the declaration of its independence.  That means to say that the supplementary list, the so-called additional item, invites this Assembly, here and now, to deal immediately with the substance of the question.

The United Kingdom Government felt that was not the best nor even the most expeditious way of proceeding. They felt it was really important, in a question so complex and so difficult, that a proper study should be made, and they suggested, therefore, that a special committee should be set up.  That procedure has many advantages. I need not enumerate them all. One important one is that by that means you would be able to hear evidence, call for testimony and information of all kinds from all sources, which this Assembly, I think, cannot do. If it would appoint a special committee of investigation, the whole problem could be examined carefully and impartially, in the light of all possible existing evidence of any value whatever.

For that reason, I do hope that the Assembly will make a choice between these two different procedures and will choose that advocated by the Government of the United Kingdom.

The PRESIDENT: If there are no other speakers, and no objections, I will consider this item included in our agenda.

Mr. MALIK (Lebanon): If this item is already included, I cannot speak further on it, but I had actually raised my hand before you announced the inclusion of this item.  If it is still possible for me to speak about the item, I would be very grateful.

The PRESIDENT: I have to explain that the item is not under discussion. We are merely discussing the report of the General Committee and the inclusion of this item. The final decision is up to the Assembly. You are free to discuss the report, and I hope we will have an agenda for the General Assembly.

Mr. MALIK (Lebanon): I take it I can speak on item 1 of document A/298 and that item is not yet adopted by this Assembly.

The PRESIDENT: Of course.

Mr. MALIK (Lebanon): As I said, I am confining my remarks only to what I have in my hand here, document A/298 of 1 May 1947, the first item in this document.

My Government, when it was first asked whether it would vote for this special session on the basis of the British proposal, did not vote for it, but of course the majority of the United Nations voted for this special session, and here we are convened perfectly in order.  My delegation therefore came to participate in the present session like any other Member of the United Nations.

It seems to me that if a committee is going to be constituted and instructed, then I do not see why this question is referred only to the First Committee of the General Assembly. This is the main point of my remarks.

Certainly, the constitution and instruction of a special committee for this general question of Palestine have implications which are beyond the scope of the First Committee. Certainly, it has economic implications and I am not saying the question of Palestine as a whole has economic implications; of course, that is obvious.  I am saying the constituting and instructing of a special committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of Palestine at the second regular session –that very act itself has economic implications. Because, how are you going to constitute a committee dealing with such an important question without going into the economic aspects of that question, and without guiding yourself by those economic aspects?

Similarly, we all know that the question–and therefore the constituting and instructing of a committee on that question–has humanitarian and social aspects.  Therefore, it seems to me–and I say that with all respect–it is necessary to refer this question, precisely for the purpose of constituting and instructing a special committee, to the Third Committee of the General Assembly also.

Of course, we all know that the question of Palestine as a whole is related to the Fourth Committee on Trusteeship, and it seems to me it would be odd if the fundamental question for which we are preparing and for which we are constituting and instructing this committee should not also be taken up by that Committee itself which deals primarily with it–namely, the Fourth Committee on Trusteeship.

Obviously, it is going to have legal aspects, and, certainly, it is going to have financial aspects for the United Nations itself.  Who is going to prepare the budget of this committee?  Certainly, the question of the budget of this committee, if it is going to be constituted, must be taken up, not by the Secretariat, but by the proper body of the General Assembly–namely, the Fifth Committee.

I put these questions to obtain information from you Mr. President, or from any Member of this Assembly:  I should like to know why the First Committee was singled out of all six committees for reference of this question to it.

I can easily see the argument of expedition and of getting on with the work, but it seems to me it is possible to be over-expeditious.

Therefore, I very humbly submit that if this committee which is proposed here is going to be constituted and instructed, the whole question should be referred to all six committees.

Unless my question is answered, I think I am quite justified in concluding that there may be certain motives behind the reference of this matter to the First Committee, and the United Nations ought to be completely detached from and completely above such motives.

Therefore, the main point of my remark about the first item of document A/298, which is before us right here, is that I do not see at all–and I am asking for information–why this item, for the reasons I have just indicated, is referred only to the First Committee and not to all six standing committees of the General Assembly.

The PRESIDENT:  The President does not wish to participate in the discussion of this matter, but when he is questioned, as he has been by the representative of Lebanon, the President is forced to reply to the question. Although I do not want to pay tribute to the Chair, I think and hope you will all agree that the Chair tries to be tolerant and impartial.

The reply to the question of why this matter is referred to the First Committee can be seen in our provisional rules of procedure, rule 109 of which states:

"Unless the General Assembly itself decides otherwise, it shall not make a final decision upon items on the agenda until it has received the report of a committee on these items."

The General Committee decided it would suggest to the General Assembly that this matter be referred to the First Committee, which is also called the Political and Security Committee.  All of you know this Committee is presided over by a Chairman and all the representatives have to be represented on it.  It is one of the broadest committees in its competence and jurisdiction we have in our Organization.

I think the General Committee was right and wise in recommending to the General Assembly that it send this matter to our highest and broadest committee before a final decision be taken.  But the representative of Lebanon said the matter is so important it should practically go through all the committees, including the Legal Committee and the Trusteeship Committee. However, whether it should call upon the advice or ask the co-operation of the other committees, is within the competence of the First Committee.

We cannot forget that the First Committee is practically made up of the General Assembly itself, because all the countries are represented in this Committee.  But in making their recommendation, the General Committee had as its objective conformity to rule 109. However, if the Assembly, in its sovereign power, should decide not to hear any committees, and not to call upon or to refer to any other committees, that would be for us to decide.

I think the way indicated by the General Committee is, in my personal opinion, the course which would best promote the interests of these serious and great questions we are discussing in this Assembly.

Mr. ANTAKI (Syria):  I want to say just a few words on a matter of procedure, and only on a matter of procedure.

When I took my seat this morning in this hall I found in front of me document A/298 dated 1 May 1947, and I understood from that that we were to discuss only the report of the General Committee on a matter of fixing the agenda.  Now I see that we are discussing a matter which is included in the agenda, and I wonder if we can carry on before we actually have an agenda, because we do not have one yet.  I understand quite well that once we adopt the agenda we shall have to refer the matters included in that agenda to the various committees, which will study the matters and report to the General Assembly.  But now we have two items on the agenda in the report of the General Committee.  One refers to the United Kingdom proposal, and the other refers to the Syrian and other Arab delegations' proposals.  Before we discuss the two items which are, or are not, to be put on the agenda, we cannot start discussing whether the first item should or should not go to the First, or Sixth, or any other Committee.  Therefore, I believe that the right way to carry on is to take the second item, which refers to the supplementary list right now, and once this second item is solved, then we can discuss the matter of referring the whole question to the competent committee.  If you consider that we should discuss the two matters at the same time, I should like to add something else.

Referring to the substance of the procedure on the first item, I would say that it is not correct to refer this first item to the First Committee alone; in fact, the Palestine question has a legal aspect.  It is more legal than political, and we hold this Committee to be essentially political.

The independence of Palestine has been acknowledged in the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 22 of the Covenant has been circulated, and those who were not acquainted with it have had enough time to consider it and to study it. According to this article, Palestine should be independent, as well as all other Arab States detached from the Turkish Empire, and we consider that this question has been developed widely in the General Committee.  And now my colleague from Iraq has also explained that in our view the Palestine problem is merely one of the application of legal principles laid down in the Covenant of the League of Nations, he has explained our belief that the mandate has been imposed against the principles laid down in the Covenant. That question has to be considered by the Legal Committee.

Of course, we are aware of the fact that all Member States sit on each committee and have equal rights of discussion.  We are aware also that the same questions which are raised in the First Committee could be discussed also in the Sixth Committee, and vice versa. But we consider that the atmosphere prevailing in a committee with a definite name has great influence on the character of the discussion which takes place in that committee, and usually each delegation appoints to each particular committee a member who is best fitted for the discussion of the same question from a different angle.  We are aware of the existence of highly qualified persons in legal matters in each delegation, and we should like the benefit of their experience and their knowledge. Therefore, we urge that the question be referred to the Sixth Committee, where it could receive adequate and enlightening study, which would enable the General Assembly to discuss it with full knowledge of the problem.

Mr. ARCE (Argentina)  (translated from Spanish): Our delegation has not, and cannot have, any preconceived notions on this subject, and I feel therefore that I ought to intervene now to speak on the question raised by the representative of Lebanon, with the purpose of seeing whether we can reach general agreement.

Obviously the question of Palestine forms one single subject. But equally obviously we cannot solve it in an Assembly summoned specifically for a given purpose.  The Assembly set up the six committees as required by the Charter, partly or, if you like, principally, because it was essential to organise the General Committee on which the Chairmen of the six committees sit ex officio.  But it is also obvious that the committees of this Assembly are absolutely equal.  In exceptional cases, on account of illness or absence, some representative with qualifications on the subject might attend any one of them.

If we convene the First Committee, its members will be the same fifty-five persons as those making up the Second, Third, Fourth Fifth or Sixth Committees.

The representative of Lebanon is right in saying that this question not only involves political questions, but also legal, economic, social, humanitarian and trusteeship questions.

Could we not solve the difficulty, and save time, if we adopted one of the following alternatives:

(1) The Assembly, consisting of the fifty-five members of the six committees, will sit as a committee and embark on the consideration of the question under rule 109 which says: "Unless the General Assembly itself decides otherwise, it shall not make a final decision upon items on the agenda until it has received the report of a committee on these items."

(2) The Assembly, taking advantage of the first part of this rule, will decide to begin the consideration of the subject, discussing it as fully as possible, and ultimately take such decisions as it sees fit.

We would then have gained time, and nobody would be giving the impression of wishing to prolong this debate or speaking in it with confused ideas.  Let us not forget, that at all times the eyes of the world are fixed upon the United Nations.  A clear proper procedure in accordance with the rules, in this case in accordance with the first part of rule 109, will always redound to the prestige of the Organization and not detract from it.

I should like, once again, to state that we have no preconceived notions on this matter, but we do wish it to be solved in all justice; if possible, in justice based on legal precedents, but in any case in equity and without losing sight of the humanitarian element.

I therefore definitely propose that we should adopt one of the following alternatives: either the General Assembly should familiarize itself with the subject so as to deal with it itself and not send it to any special committee, since it already has six committees–and this could be done on the basis of rule 109; or else, failing this, if the rules of procedure are to be interpreted more strictly, the Assembly should turn itself into a committee and discuss the subject as fully as may be necessary, and subsequently revert to its status as the Assembly and take such decisions as it may see fit.

All this simply means that the presiding officers will be different; if the Assembly itself deals with the question, the President of the Assembly will preside.  If we are to refer the question to a particular committee or to the six committees, we shall have to decide whether we are to be presided over by the Chairman of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth or Sixth Committee, and in the end the question will be referred back to the Assembly for decision.

I am stating our position in this question quite clearly, because our delegation would like the question of Palestine to be settled once and for all, in accordance with the principles of justice and humanity which the United Nations look to us to apply.

Mr. RODRÍGUEZ FABREGAT (Uruguay) (translated from Spanish):  The delegation of Uruguay is going to vote for what we take to be an item on the agenda of this Assembly. And in so doing it is gratified to note on very general lines that this acute and grave question has come to the General Assembly of the United Nations for consideration.

But, without wishing at this moment to go into the substance of the question–because that is not our present task–but merely to make up our minds on whether to vote for the inclusion or not of these two items on our final agenda, I feel bound to say that my purpose in coming to this rostrum was not to say much more than that in my view there are some things not explained in this report referred to us by the Committee.  There are other documents submitted to the consideration of that Committee on which I understand it has begun to deliberate.  Nor am I going into the substance of the matter when I ask quite simply whether the fact that these documents which the Committee has begun to consider are not embodied in this report means that they will not be considered further.

The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I can answer that question immediately. Those documents will be considered by the General Committee immediately after the Assembly has adopted one agenda or the other, and they will then be referred to the General Assembly for its consideration.

Mr. RODRÍGUEZ FABREGAT (Uruguay) (translated from Spanish): Consequently, if this documentation submitted to the Assembly and referred to the Committee has not vanished en route, I think that it would be advisable not only to adopt these items of the agenda, as proposed, but also that they should be considered in the First Committee, the Political Committee, in the first instance, because, in spite of the immense complexity of the problem, it would seem that that is the proper Committee, and secondly, because it seems to be a simple question of procedure, as the President has said.

In any case we ought to be gratified that this question has been submitted to us. And if it is true, as I know it is, that the eyes of the world and the expectations of mankind are fixed on this Assembly and its work, not on account of peace alone, but also on account of world conditions, and since we are expected to secure what should be a just peace, let us devote ourselves to this task and endeavour to ensure that the immense sacrifices of the world to rid itself of the burden of injustice for generations to come will not have been in vain.

With this hope on the part of Uruguay, I leave this rostrum before entering into the substance of the question.

The PRESIDENT: I think we should adjourn now.  If there are no other speakers, I will consider this item adopted.  It is adopted.

The Assembly will adjourn and reconvene at 3 p.m.

The Assembly rose at 1.22 p.m.

specsess1.47