Attack on West Bank village Qibya – SecCo debate – Verbatim record

Held on 29 October 1953, at 3 p.m 

Provisional agenda

(S/Agenda/632)

1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. The Palestine question

Compliance with and enforcement of the General Armistice Agreements, with special reference to recent acts of violence, and in particular to the incident at Qibya on 14-15 October 1953: report by the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization.

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

The Palestine question

Compliance with and enforcement of the General Armistice Agreements, with special reference to recent acts of violence, and in particular to the incident at Qibya on 14-15 October 1953 (S/3109, S/3110, S/3111) (continued)

REPORT BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE TRUCE

SUPERVISION ORGANIZATION (continued)

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Eban, representative of Israel, and Major General Bennike, Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine, took places at the Council table.

1. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): I should like to inquire of the President whether it would be in order at this point in our consideration of the question for any member of the Council who so desires to address certain questions to the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization with a view to clarifying particular points made in his report.

2. The PRESIDENT: Yes, that would be in order.

3. Mr. KYROU (Greece): I fully agree with the answer the President has given to the representative of the United Kingdom. However, in view of the extreme importance of the answers that General Bennike may be called upon to give to questions put to him, would it not be advisable to agree beforehand that the General would not be obliged to answer at once?

4. The PRESIDENT: I think it goes without saying at the General may answer at once if he feels he can or he may ask to be allowed to reply on a later occasion if he does not think it opportune to reply now.

5. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): I have several questions to ask, and I suppose it would be best if each one were interpreted as soon as I have asked it.

6. The PRESIDENT: I think that would be a very good procedure.

7. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): The first question I wish to ask is the following: On 19 October 1953, the Prime Minister of Israel broadcast a statement on the Qibya incident in which he denied that 600 men of the Israel defence forces took part in the action against the village and said that investigation showed that not a single army unit was absent from its base on the night in question. Has General Bennike any comments to make on that statement?

8. Question No. 2: Two nights before the Qibya incident, alleged infiltrators killed a woman and two children by throwing a hand grenade into a house in the Israel village of Yahud. It has been alleged that this may have provoked the retaliatory raid on Qibya. Would General Bennike tell us what steps were taken to clear up this earlier incident and whether the Jordan authorities were co-operating in any way?

9. Question No. 3: General Bennike has remarked upon the efficacy of the local commanders' agreement. Would he say if this is considered by both sides to be of value?

10. Question No. 4: Would the Chief of Staff say that, since this agreement was signed early in June 1953, there has been until recently and on the whole an improvement in the situation in the Jordan-Israel boundary areas?

11. Question No. 5: 1 understand that the local commanders' agreement is for three months only and can be denounced by either side without notice. Does General Bennike consider that it would be useful for the agreement to form part of a more permanent system; in particular, that the Mixed Armistice Commission should be consulted before its denunciation or non-renewal by either side?

12. Question No. 6: In his statement, in paragraph 40 of the 630th meeting of the Security Council, General Bennike said that no detailed arrangements were made at two meetings of police officers held in July. What importance does he attach to improved contacts between the police on either side of the border?

13. Question No. 7: Would General Bennike explain exactly how the observer corps at his disposal works? Does be believe that there are enough observers? Have they adequate transport and communication? Are they based in Jerusalem or do they cover the whole frontier? Could the Chief of Staff say whether in his view the observer corps could suitably be strengthened and, if so, how?

14. The PRESIDENT: I recognize the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Organization in order that he may answer these questions, if he can.

15. Major General BENNIKE (Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization): I should like to request the President to allow me to wait with my answers until I have studied the questions and prepared the answers.

16. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French): I should be glad if the procedure followed in respect of the questions asked by Sir Gladwyn Jebb could also be followed in respect of mine, and an exact interpretation given of each question as it is put.

17. The PRESIDENT: That procedure will be followed.

18. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French): I should like to ask General Bennike some questions of a rather more general nature that those put by the United Kingdom representative. It is quite possible that the replies to several of these questions may be found in the copious documentation on the Israel problem which all the delegations have at their disposal, but these replies may be scattered over a large number of documents and a number of years, and I think it would be most helpful if General Bennike could give brief replies to these questions and even relate them to some extent to the events which have led to this meeting.

19. My first question is: Can General Bennike tell the Council, with a few details, how the various bodies subordinate to the Truce Supervision Organization, in particular the Mixed Armistice Commissions such as the Jordan-Israel commission, are operating at present?

20. My second question is: Could General Bennike inform us whether in his opinion there is anything lacking in the operation of the various organs and whether he could make any suggestions with a view to improving their organization?

21. Third question: Could the General tell us to what extent the parties are complying with the commission's decisions of which they have been notified? Needless to say, I am leaving aside the particularly serious cases to which it has been possible to draw the Council's attention directly.

22. My fourth question is very similar to the last one asked by Sir Gladwyn Jebb. My delegation is very anxious to know how the supervision of the truce is actually organized, how many observers are at General Bennike's disposal, what active measures these observers can themselves take, how soon after an incident has occurred these observers are able to inter-vene, and whether they always receive from the local authorities the assistance and co-operation to which they are entitled.

23. Fifth and last question: The statistics which General Bennike has provided in his report cover only the period from I January to 15 October 1953.1 think it would certainly be in the Council's interest to have in a shorter and less detailed form statistics relating to the truce violations which have occurred during the preceding years to which we must more or less closely relate the events which have been described to us. In particular, could General Bennike tell us the number of truce violations which have been reported to the commission since it started to function, the number of such cases on which it has been able to pass a verdict, and also the number in which Israel or one of its neighboring countries was found to have committed the violation?

24. The PRESIDENT: I suppose that Major General Bennike will request the same delay with respect to the answers to these questions because they are similar in nature.

25. Mr. LODGE (United States of America): I also have a few questions that I would like to ask:

26. First, could General Bennike describe more fully the operational procedures which are followed under the local commanders' agreement?

28. Third, does the Truce Supervision Organization have information as to the extent of the organization of infiltration?

29. Fourth, what material damage was there to the village and its inhabitants as a result of the Qibya incident?

30. Mr. KYROU (Greece): I have only one question to put to the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. My question enlarges somewhat upon the seventh question put by the representative of the United Kingdom and refers to the advisability of strengthening the observer corps. Would General Bennike find it advisable to strengthen this corps in such a way as to pertnit it to play a preventive role? In other words, I wonder whether the presence of observers at certain psychologically dangerous points along the frontier might not prevent possible frontier incidents.

31. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon):  In view of the large number of questions to which we have just been treated, it will be difficult to ask completely new questions.  However, I shall begin my expression of interest in this matter by putting three preliminary questions to General Bennike and his organization.

32. My first question is very simple: Has the life of General Bennike or any of his collaborators been threatened?

33.  My second question is: Have General Bennike and his organization been prevented from performing their functions. If so, when, how and by whom?

34. My third and last preliminary question is: Would General Bennike and his organization be kind enough to give us the number of Arabs that have been expelled from Israel since 1948?

35. The PRESIDENT:  I do not know whether General Bennike wants to reply to any of these questions now.

36. Major General BENNIKE (Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization):  I beg to be allowed to wait.

37. The PRESIDENT: Does the representative of Lebanon have any further questions to ask now?

38. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon):,I have many other questions, but I do not want to put them now.

39. The PRESIDENT: As no other member of the Council wishes to speak now, I call on the representative of Israel, who has asked for the floor.

40. Mr. EBAN (Israel): I should like to address the Security Council at an early meeting, if it is convenient, on the whole subject of Israel's security situation. The object of my questions now is only to complete and to clarify the record on the matters contained in General Bennike's report presented at the 630th meeting of the Security Council.

41. My first question relates to appendix III, sub-paragraph 3 of the report. In listing complaints in the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission, the report states:

"And in addition 191 complaints against Jordan were settled without discussion by a resolution that included the following:

"'The crossing of the line by civilians is inconsistent with article IV, paragraph 3 of the General Armistice Agreement.'"

42. The paragraph which I have quoted sounds as if the resolution gave no indication of whether the 191 complaints against Jordan were valid or not. I therefore ask whether the Chief of Staff can confirm that the aforesaid resolution included some acknowledgment by Jordan of the validity of Israel's complaints, by saying in its principle clause:

"The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan delegation regrets the crossing of the demarcation line by civilians as reported in the above complaints. It reaffirms that it is taking all possible measures to prevent such illegal crossings of the line in the future, as they are against the interests of both parties and inconsistent with article IV, paragraph 3, of the General Armistice Agreement."

43. Are my records correct in showing that this is part of the same resolution referred to in appendix III?

44. My other questions are much more brief and equally specific. The report under discussion by the Security Council refers to the period, since the beginning of the year, which I would understand to be from I January 1953. However, the first incident mentioned is that of Falameh-Rantis on 28-29 January. I wonder whether we could have information on the border incidents which took place in the early weeks of January, prior to the Falameh-Rantis incident, and which resulted in what the report describes as three weeks of rapidly developing tension. My question relates to information on border incidents between 1 January and 28 January 1953.

45. My third question refers to paragraph 42 of General Bennike's report at the 630th meeting where it is stated that the attack on the Israel village of Yahud on 12-13 October which caused the death of two small children and their mother may have provoked the attack on Qibya. It is my understanding that the Mixed Armistice Commission, in condemning Jordan for the attack, defined that situation as "intolerable aggression". I wonder whether, in order to clear up this point, we could simply have transmitted to us the full text of the resolution on Yahud.

46. My fourth question refers to the report by Commander Hutchison on the Qibya incident, quoted in the report of the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization. In that memorandum the conclusion is drawn that, because certain types of weapons were employed by the attackers, the attacks therefore must have been carried out by Israel defense forces. I would appreciate it if we could be told whether the United Nations observers have examined the defense system of Israel border villages and have concluded that the weapons with which these settlements are armed to repel attacks from across the border are of a type and make different from those employed by the Israel defense forces.

47. I have a question of fact relating to paragraph 48 where General Bennike states that Israel airplanes attacked Arabs and their herds of camels and goats. I believe the reference is to the south of the country. Neither I nor any of my colleagues have heard anything of this. Therefore, could we please have the full text of the Mixed Armistice Commission's resolution on this matter?

48. I refer again to the Israel-Egyptian Armistice situation, in which connexion the Chief of Staff in his report quotes a resolution adopted by the Israel-Egypt Mixed Armistice Commission on 2 October 1953, regarding alleged military activities in the demilitarized zone of El Auja. In accordance with article X of the Israel-Egypt Armistice Agreement, I understand that a decision of the commission is not final, if it is appealed, until the Special Committee has taken a decision on the appeal. Am I right in stating that there is an appeal which was submitted on 2 October, and would it be correct to deduce that this resolution is therefore still sub judice and that a meeting of the Special Committee will be convened as requested by Israel in order to examine this appeal?

49. Paragraph 34 of the report in which it is reported that the talks between high-ranking military com-manders proposed by Israel at the end of January did not take place. Can we be informed why these high level talks did not take place?

50. In paragraph 39 there is a description of the differences between the responsibilities of the Israel Government and the Jordan Government in respect of infiltration. The report states:

"Jordan is taking measures against infiltration and will continue to do so. Israel will co-operate by supplying information to Jordan on infiltration."

51. Have the measures which the Jordan Government maintains it has taken resulted in fact in any reduction in the number of infiltration cases or in their grave nature?

52. I now have a question on the geography of the situation. Is it correct to say that the greatest number of armistice violations ascribed to Jordan, in accordance with the findings of the Mixed Armistice Commission, have come from the area Tulkarm-Qalqiliya-Jerusalem, contiguous to the area of Israel's greatest population concentration and most vulnerable lines of com-munication? Would that be an accurate description of the concentration in space of the infiltration movements?

53. My next question refers to the local commanders' meetings. I should like to ask whether the Chief of Staff can give us his experienced opinion on whether these meetings of junior officers could do more than they have until now, namely deal in a limited way with some of the technical matters that arise after incidents have occurred, such as the return of cows, flocks and small parts of stolen property. Does he believe that the local commanders' meetings or agreements could go very much beyond the scope of those operations?

54. My last two questions refer to some of the more general observations in the Chief of Staff's report. The Security Council, in its resolution of I September 1951 [S/2322], has confirmed that since the armistice regime is of a permanent character, the parties to it cannot assert that they are actively belligerent. I wonder whether the Chief of Staff shares the view that a belief by any party in its rights to consider itself a belligerent might have an adverse effect on the operation of the armistice system?

55. Finally, but I think most important, on the subject of the meaning of the Armistice Agreements, we note that the Armistice Agreements are described in their own texts and in Security Council resolutions as a transition to a permanent peace. May I ask whether the Chief of Staff would like to say whether he regards this as a very fundamental part of the armistice system. Would he regard the acceptance of this concept as something which would alter the security situation? Finally, has the Truce Supervision Organization recently taken any steps to remind the parties of this objective which they have signed in the Armistice Agreements?

56. Mr. ZAFRULLA KHAN (Pakistan).: With reference to the last question proposed by the represen-tative of the State of Israel, may I be permitted to observe that of its three parts, the first appears to me to be a question of opinion, the second may or may not be a question that is relevant, and the third part appears not to relate to the functions of the commission at all.

57. I merely want this observation to be on the record. I am not proposing a debate on the nature of the question.

58. The PRESIDENT: I have no more speakers on my list. The question to be decided is when our next meeting on this item will take place. Tomorrow afternoon, there will be a meeting of the Council on the complaint by Syria against Israel concerning work on the west bank of the River Jordan in the, demilitarized zone.

59. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): Obviously the questions that have been put today to the General who is the center of our attention at the present moment are very important questions, and he undoubtedly is going to think them over and prepare his replies to us. These questions have been put as follows: some by the United Kingdom, some by the United States, some by France, one by the representative of Greece and three by me.  And, as I have said, I still have a number of other questions which I should like to put to him later.  Then, Mr. Eban has asked of the General a number of very important and interesting questions.

60. It seems to me that it is clear that we ought to hear from the representative of Jordan sooner or later because, obviously, many of these things affect Jordan. Therefore, I should like to reserve the right of the Government of Jordan to put its own questions to General Bennike at our next meeting on this question. I think we should hear not only from Mr. Eban as to the questions upon which he would like to receive clarification but also from the representative of Jordan whose own point of view, I presume, ought to be interesting.

61. The PRESIDENT: I am quite sure that the Council would have asked me to invite the represen-tative of Jordan to take a place at the Security Council table if, as is the procedure, he had submitted a written request in this regard. This has not happened. However, I know that the representative of Jordan is present. If the Council is agreeable to the idea, I shall invite him to the table and allow him even today to put the questions he would like to ask.

62. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): Mr. President, it is very kind of you to press for these questions now and I think it is perhaps your duty as President to do so. But, as I indicated, the representative of Jordan may not want to put his questions now and I think it would still be proper for him to put them to the General when we meet again.

63. The best thing is to decide this question at the next meeting on this item. However, if a compromise solution is desired, the representative of Jordan, between now and the next meeting on this item, might prepare his questions and hand them to General Bennike in writing so that the General will also be thinking about them as well as about the ones that he heard today. The text of the questions that Jordan will put to General Bennike will also go to the members of the Council.

64. If that meets with the desire of the President to expedite our business, I think it could easily be arranged. If, however, the President has no objection to the representative of Jordan taking his time and waiting until we meet again to put his questions, that also would be agreeable. Either one of these two solutions would be agreeable. However, with all due respect to the desire of the President to expedite our business, just as I said at the beginning, the representative of Jordan has not asked to be here today.

65. The PRESIDENT: Should we now simply decide that at our next meeting we will invite the represen-tative of Jordan to be present and follow, at that time, the same procedure, with respect to the questions that the representative of Jordan wants to put, as we have followed for the others?

66. I recognize the representative of the United Kingdom on a point of order.

67. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): I think it might save time if the President, on our behalf, were to request the representative of Jordan, if possible, to submit any questions he may have to the Chief of Staff in writing between now and our next meeting, so that when the Chief of Staff makes his reply to all our questions at that time, he could possibly include a reply to the questions of the representative of Jordan as well.

68. The PRESIDENT: As I understand it, this is not going to be a real point of order, but a suggestion.  I will therefore first call on the representative of France.

69. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French): I was going to say exactly what Sir Gladwyn Jebb has just said.  It is my opinion that the general debate cannot begin until all the questions have been put to General Bannike by the various members of the Council or by the invited delegations, and until General Bennike has replied to them.  In order to save time, in the present instance at least one meeting, I think it would be better if the representative of Jordan would submit his questions in writing, a procedure to which Mr. Malik does not appear to have objected.

70.  Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon):  I think that is a perfectly Acceptable procedure. I suggested it myself as a compromise.  As I said, the same set of questions could also be circulated among the members of the Security Council in the meantime, so that everyone will be appraised of them, and not only General Bennike.  Therefore, I suggest that the Council should accept that procedure and that the representative of Jordan should be asked to submit his questions in writing as soon as possible between now and our next meeting.  May I inquire, Mr. President, when you envisage that the Security Council will meet again on this question?

71. Mr. KYROU (Greece):  I have asked to speak on a point of clarification.  Am I correct in understanding that the President is applying rule 14 of the rules of procedure, namely that we are inviting a representative of Jordan to come to our table although, if  I am correct, the representative of Jordan has until now not submitted a request to that effect?  May I at the same time emphasize that my delegation thinks that the presence of the representative of Jordan would not only be advisable by very helpful.

72. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French): Might I also suggest that the President should give it as his opinion that if there are any delegation members who have not yet put questions to General Bennike but who, in the light of today's meeting, would like to do so, or if there are any of us who would like to put additional questions, we may do so in writing before the Council's next meeting?

73. The PRESIDENT:  I think we can easily arrange the matter as we wish.  We will maintain our decision to invite the representative of Jordan to appear at our next meeting.  I think everyone is agreed ton the importance of that procedure.  I have not been able to act upon it because until today I have received no written request, which is the usual procedure.  But we can take this decision.  I think we are all in agreement that the question is very important, and it is obvious that one party should be represented as well as the other.  In those circumstances, I hope that the representative of Jordan will be here at our next meeting, and I shall return to the question of when that will be. But we can, at the same time, agree that written questions may be put by the representative of Jordan, or by any other member of the Security Council, to General Bennike who will then deal with them in the ordinary way so as to expedite the matter.

74. At the next meeting the questions will be read and the replies given by the General so that they will be on record.

75. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): For my part, I quite agree with this procedure. But I think that neither the President nor Mr. Hoppenot, the representative of France, have in mind that there will be no further questions put to the General beyond these written ones. I take it that it will still be possible for us to ask questions at any time during the consideration of this matter.

76. The PRESIDENT: That goes without saying. The item remains on our agenda and not only the members of the Security Council but the two parties, Israel and Jordan, will be within their rights to put questions before the Council.

77. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French): Since Mr. Malik has asked for my opinion, I shall tell him that a definite limit should be set on the time allowed for questions on General Bennike's report itself. We cannot keep on questioning and cross-examining the General, throughout the debate, on matters connected with his report and asking him for explanations concerning it. If subsequently we need General Bennike's opinion on any particular point as the debate proceeds, delegations will, as a matter of course, be entitled to put questions to him.

78. Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : I should like to ask the President whether we could not receive in writing the texts of the questions put here today, and of the answers to be prepared by General Bennike, before the Security Council goes on, to hear those answers at its next meeting.

79. That would help members of the Security Council to acquaint themselves more fully with those questions. They would think about them, appraise their significance, grasp the full import of the answers, which would of course be extremely useful to our work.

80. The PRESIDENT: The questions  put today will be in the record of this meeting and in the hands of the members tomorrow. It would be difficult to indicate when the answers will be ready. The normal procedure, as was the case with General Bennike's predecessor, is that the answers  are put before the Council and then appear the next day in the minutes of the meeting.

81. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): I wish to revert for one moment to what the Mr. President and Mr. Hoppenot have said. I quite recognize that there should be some kind of an end to the questions we are going to put to General Bennike; there is no doubt about that. But at the same time, from his own answers to our present questions, all sorts of things might arise and we must have the right to keep on asking him questions in a normal manner as this debate develops. Therefore, if his own answers elicit further questions from us, we ought not to be debarred by any hard and fast rule from doing so. That was really my main point when I first spoke.

82. The PRESIDENT: I do not think that the Security Council should take any decision now as to whether we can proceed with further questioning. That will come about as a result of the discussion.

83. Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : I am not raising the question of when General Bennike can prepare and submit his answers. That of course depends on many factors and is difficult to decide on now.

84. But, since the Chief of Staff of the Truce Super-vision Organization, General Bennike, will prepare his answers in writing, since it is impossible to answer twenty or more questions without notes, with-out having the answers in written form, I should like to propose that, as soon as General Bennike has prepared his answers, they should be circulated so that we can study them before the present item is discussed further in the Security Council. Otherwise we shall find that, when General Bennike has read out his answers, we shall have to suspend the meeting again, since it will be impossible to express an immediate opinion on the substance of answers given orally by General Bennike on a large number of varied and complex questions.

85. I note the general endeavor to speed up consideration of the question and to remove every possible cause of delay. I should also like to make whatever contribution I can to that end.

86. I think it would be most helpful if members of the Security Council could have at least twenty-four hours in which to examine the answers which General Bennike will probably prepare in written form. This would facilitate and accelerate the Council's work. But if for some reason, that cannot be arranged, I shall not, of course, insist.

87. The PRESIDENT: I think it must be impossible for General Bennike to tell us now when he will be ready since he has not even received all the questions. We know that there will be a list of questions from the representative of Jordan. We cannot say whether the answers to these questions will require information from Palestine, or whether some of the other questions might require such information. I think it is rather difficult for the General to say now whether he will be able to answer all questions twenty-four hours before our next meeting. After all, the questions are important, and some may be more important than others. I think that the first time we meet we must accept the fact that some questions are not at the stage in which they can be answered fully.

88. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French): In my opinion there is a great deal to be said for Mr. Vyshinsky's suggestion. I think that its adoption would expedite our work, and enable us to save one meeting at any rate. If we proceed otherwise, the whole of our next meeting will be devoted to listening to General Bennike's replies to the questions put to him, and then we shall have to adjourn to study those replies. If, on the other hand, these replies are available to us the evening before, we shall have twenty-four hours to study them, and we can devote that first meeting to the questions which as the Lebanese representative has stated some delegations will wish to put to General Bennike on his answers to the original questions.

89. Moreover, it appears to me to be rather difficult to fix today the date on which we should meet to deal with these questions. It might be better to agree that the President in office next month should convene the Council twenty-four hours after General Bennike's replies to the questions put to him have been circulated to the members of the Council, so that the Council is able to study those replies the next day.

90. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): I think it is necessary to set a tentative date even now, it being understood, of course, that the date could be postponed a day or so if necessary. But we ought to have some idea when we are going to meet again on this very important question. To that end, and keeping in mind all the suggestions that have been made and the difficulties in the way of preparing these answers, and so forth, I suggest for the consideration of the Security Council, as a tentative date, next Wednesday afternoon.

91. Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : If we adopt Mr. Malik's proposal, this will mean that the Council's next meeting will be held five days after today's meeting. We shall have four days in which to receive General Bennike's replies to our questions.

92. 1 think that General Bennike will be able to give us those replies twenty-four hours earlier than that, on 2 November, so that we may discuss the matter without having to postpone it to some later meeting, as Mr. Hoppenot has rightly observed.

93. 1 should like to point out once again that if we do not receive General Bennike's replies in writing before we meet on, 3 November, we shall undoubtedly have to cut that meeting short by confining ourselves merely to hearing his replies, and we shall have no opportunity to continue bur work. I should like to inquire beforehand of General Bennike although I admit it will be difficult for him to tell me in advance -whether he will be ready in time, inasmuch as the ,Council has asked him many questions and everything cannot be clear to him at present.

94. If, however, we have to postpone the meeting for twenty-four hours I do not think that anyone will object. In the final analysis we shall still gain time if it is held not on 3 November but on 4 November. I think that Mr. Malik, too, will have no objections to this, since we shall have a written document before us. This will enable us to deal more thoroughly with the contents of that document and with the questions to which it contains the replies.

95. I have confined my remarks to this matter and have said nothing whatsoever about the date. I do not say that we must decide that General Bennike must answer us within twenty-four hours. On the contrary, I consider that we should arrange to meet twenty-four hours after receiving his replies; this is what Mr. Hoppenot suggested and I am very grateful to him for this suggestion. I am in full agreement with him and I consider that this will facilitate our work.

96. The PRESIDENT: Before this entire discussion on written questions and written replies started, I had started -to speak to the Council about our next meeting but I did not get further than tomorrow afternoon's meeting, which has been fixed and which concerns work on the west bank of the River Jordan. It was my intention. then to remind the Council that it will meet again on Monday on the question of Trieste. On Tuesday, the Council has to meet at 10.30 a.m. because the meeting for the election of a member of the International Court of Justice by the Security Council will have to take place at the same time as the meeting of the General Assembly on that matter. Since we have to meet at 10.30 a.m. on that day and since the decision regarding the member of the Inter-national Court of Justice will probably be taken very quickly, we could have this item that we are discussing today as the next item. However, as the question has been raised as to whether the answers of General Bennike should be submitted twenty-four hours before the meeting and it will not be possible to have answers to the questions of the representative of Jordan until they are raised, I wonder whether it would not be the best solution to leave it to the new President, who will assume office on Monday, to find out when it will be possible to have the next meeting on this question. Then, if everything is ready, it will be the appropriate time to distribute the agenda as well as such replies as the General can present in writing.

97. Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I have no objection to the President's proposal that the date of our next meeting should be fixed by the new president, the next in rotation. I understand that the next pre-sident will be Mr. Hoppenot. This will make matters easier, since he himself holds the view that written answers should be available twenty-four hours before the date of the meeting.

98. 1 would again, earnestly beg the Council to have regard to my desire that we should not meet on 3 November. Whether we meet on.2 or 4 November is a matter of indifference, but I should like to have General Bennike's written answers in my hands before the date of the meeting and, as Mr. Hoppnot proposed, twenty-four hours in advance.

99. It might perhaps be as well to place on record this wish of the Security Council for the benefit of the next president.

100. It also seems to me that General Bennike has been present and has heard all our questions. He has an expert knowledge of all the facts of the case and of the situation as a whole and I do not think that he will have much difficulty in preparing answers even to such a very large number of questions. We are not asking him to submit a thesis for a doctorate, but answers to questions in which he. is well versed and to which he can provide answers within four days. This is more time than we usually have at our disposal to prepare statements on major issues. I personally see no difficulty about fixing a meeting for 3 November. But whether or not the Council decides to leave it to its next president to fix the date of its meeting, I should like it to express a wish that General Bennike's answers should be made available to its members twenty-four hours before it does any further work on the question.

101. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French) : I should first like to tell Mr. Vyshinsky that, next month, the President of the Council will have to use every endeavor to forget his personal preferences as the representative of France, and not to let them prevail over the wishes of the Council.

102. Actually, I think this discussion is rather pointless. We have in any case to meet on Tuesday morning, 3 November, to elect a judge to the Court ….

103. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): We already have a meeting scheduled for Monday, 2 November.

104. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French): We already have a meeting -scheduled for Monday, but it is to consider the Trieste question. Our meeting on Tuesday, the morning of 3 November, is to elect a judge to the Court. That is a meeting which should ordinarily although I know it is never possible to prophesy where the Council is concerned -last ten to fifteen minutes. At that time, either General Bennike will have sent us his replies the evening before, or they will be ready and we shall be able to hear them and meet again on Wednesday to reply to them without having lost any time, or, alternatively, they will not yet be ready, General Bennike will be unable to let us know the date on which he will be sending them to us, and the Council, in consultation with the President, will decide the date of the next meeting. As we are to meet on Tuesday, 3 November, however, I do not think it is absolutely necessary for us to waste any more time deciding on what date and at what time we are going to meet to discuss General Bennike's replies.

105. Mr. LODGE (United States of America): I think that there is also a plenary session of the General Assembly on Tuesday morning which will be held simultaneously with the meeting of the Security Council. After certain matters that affect the Security Council are taken care of, the plenary session will go on to other matters, and many of us who are here now will have to be there then.

106. It seems to me that we can accommodate the representative of the Soviet Union and the repre-sentative of France by receiving General Bennike's report on 3 November, if it is ready, and then meeting on 4 November to consider it.

107. Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I take Mr. Hoppenot's statement to mean that he is prepared to advise the next President of the Council that is, Mr. Hoppenot himself to proceed exactly in accordance with the exchange of views that has taken place today on this, question. I have therefore no further observations to make.

108. The PRESIDENT: We are then agreed on having the meeting next Wednesday, 4 November, in the afternoon and, if possible, the report will be received on Tuesday, 3 November. Of course, this is tentative. All power is left to my successor to make a change if he cannot fulfil the desires of the Soviet Union representative.

             The meeting rose at 4.55 p.m.