YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED NATIONS
1958
OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK
THE PALESTINE QUESTION
CHAPTER IV
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE MIDDLE EAST
COMPLAINTS OF LEBANON AND JORDAN
DEVELOPMENTS LEADING TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 11 JUNE
On 22 May 1958 Lebanon asked for an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider the following item: "Complaint by Lebanon in respect of a situation arising from the intervention of the United Arab Republic in the internal affairs of Lebanon, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security".
The intervention, it was stated, included: the infiltration of armed bands from Syria into Lebanon; the participation of United Arab Republic nations in acts of terrorism and rebellion against the established authorities in Lebanon; the supply of arms from Syria to individuals and bands in Lebanon rebelling against those authorities; and the waging of a violent radio and press campaign in the United Arab Republic calling for the overthrow of the established authorities in Lebanon.
On 27 May, the Security Council included the Lebanese complaint in its agenda but postponed further consideration of the item until 3 June, as the League of Arab States was to consider the matter on 31 May. After a further postponement, in order to permit the Arab League to complete its consideration of the matter, the Security Council began its discussion on 6 June.
The representative of Lebanon, in setting forth his Government's complaints, said that the existence of continuing massive, illegal and unprovoked intervention in the affairs of Lebanon by the United Arab Republic was proved by a large-scale supply of arms from the United Arab Republic to subversive elements in Lebanon; by the training in subversion of such elements on the territory of the United Arab Republic; and by the participation of United Arab Republic civilian nationals in Lebanon in subversive and terrorist activities, in which members of the Syrian and Egyptian armed forces had also been implicated.
The violent and utterly unprecedented press and radio campaign conducted by the United Arab Republic against Lebanon was, he said, unmistakably aimed at the overthrow of the existing regime in Lebanon, and the replacement of it with one more subservient to the will of the United Arab Republic. His Government had tried direct contacts with the United Arab Republic in order to end that unprovoked massive intervention, but to no avail. It had resorted to the Arab League, but no decision had been taken, and the intervention, far from abating, had actually increased in intensity.
The representative of the United Arab Republic observed that the complaint before the Council had been submitted only after the disturbances in Lebanon had become very serious. In order to meet the situation, he said, the Government of Lebanon had tried to give it an international aspect so as to prove that the disturbances were caused by foreign intervention and not by the position of the Government itself on domestic matters. He rejected categorically the assertion that there had been any intervention in Lebanese affairs by the United Arab Republic. According to the opposition leaders in Lebanon, the disturbances were due mainly to President Chamoun's wish to revise the constitution to permit his candidacy for his second term of office.
The Lebanese representative's allegations, he continued, were not supported by any concrete proof. The Lebanese Government's claims to having arrested Syrian army men and other foreign agitators contrasted with the fact that there was no record of any of those Syrians having been brought to trial. The so-called radio and press campaign, even if substantiated, could not have any influence on the events in Lebanon.
The Government of the United Arab Republic, he added, upheld and respected the independence of Lebanon and would not permit any interference in its affairs. Had the Government of Lebanon really been eager to find a solution to the dispute, it would certainly have accepted a solution proposed in the Arab League which had been accepted by his Government.
The majority of Security Council members expressed their concern at what was termed the grave situation described by the Lebanese representative. Several members regarded the reply of the United Arab Republic as unconvincing.
The USSR spokesman said that the representative of Lebanon had failed to prove the allegation of intervention by the United Arab Republic. It was clear, he added, that there were opinions in Lebanon which differed radically from those developed by the Lebanese representative, whose charges against the United Arab Republic were designed to justify claims for foreign interference and for foreign troops, who presumably would not be Arabs. The USSR considered that the settlement of questions regarding the Lebanese Government was the inalienable right of the Lebanese people, and no other Government had any right to interfere.
On 10 June, the representative of Sweden submitted a draft resolution whereby the Council would decide "to dispatch urgently an observation group to proceed to Lebanon so as to ensure that there was no illegal infiltration of personnel or supply of arms or other materiél across the Lebanese borders" and would authorize the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps to that end.
It was evident, he said, that foreign interference might contribute to internal antagonisms in Lebanon and make a settlement difficult. If such interference had occurred, it was deeply to be deplored and every effort should be made to correct the situation. In the circumstances, there might be justification for considering some arrangement for investigation or observation by the Council itself.
On 11 June the Security Council adopted the Swedish draft resolution by 10 votes in favour, with 1 abstention (USSR).
The USSR representative explained that his abstention did not mean that the USSR had altered its view that the Lebanese complaint was unfounded. He noted that the Council, in adopting the resolution, had not expressed any views as to the substance of the Lebanese charges and that the United Arab Republic and Lebanon had not objected to the resolution.
INTERIM REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL
AND FIRST REPORT OF UNITED NATIONS
OBSERVATION GROUP IN LEBANON
On 16 June, the Secretary-General submitted a report to the Security Council on the steps he had taken, under the authority given to him, towards implementing the Council's resolution of 11 June. The following three members of the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon (UNOGIL) had been appointed: Galo Plaza of Ecuador, Rajeshwar Dayal of India and Major-General Odd Bull of Norway. A further interim report on implementation of the Council's resolution was submitted by the Secretary-General on 28 June.
On 3 July, UNOGIL, which had held its first meeting at Beirut on 19 June, submitted its first report to the Security Council through the Secretary-General. The report covered, respectively, problems of observation, methods adopted, and observations carried out by the Group.
It was noted that the areas of primary concern to the Group were those where the problems of access were the greatest, both from the standpoint of topography and of obtaining freedom and security of movement.
With regard to the methods adopted for observation, details were given on the establishment of a system of permanent observation posts and regular patrols.
Finally, the report said, the patrols had reported substantial movements of armed men within the country and concentrations at various places. It had not been possible to establish where the arms seen by the Observers had been acquired from, or whether any of the armed men observed had infiltrated from outside; there was little doubt, however, that the vast majority of the armed men was in any case composed of Lebanese.
On 8 July, the Lebanese representative submitted his Government's comments by letter on UNOGIL's first report, to the following effect: The positive conclusions drawn in the report were inconclusive or misleading or unwarranted. The information contained in the report fully substantiated the Lebanese Government's charge that illegal infiltration of armed men and smuggling of arms was a reality. The responsibility of the Security Council with respect to the Lebanese complaint therefore remained undiminished and intact.
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINT BY LEBANON;
COMPLAINT BY JORDAN
On 15 July 1958, the Security Council called an emergency meeting at the request of the United States representative.
At the outset of the meeting, there was some discussion of a point of order raised by the USSR representative regarding the credentials of the representative of Iraq. The USSR representative stated that Iraq's seat in the Security Council could be occupied only by a representative of the lawful Government, which was the revolutionary Government of Iraq.
Other members expressed the opinion that the representative occupying the seat of Iraq should continue to do so, under the provisional rules of procedure, unless the objection was sustained by a vote of the Council. The question was not pressed to a vote.
The United States representative said that the territorial integrity of Lebanon was increasingly threatened by insurrection stimulated and assisted from outside. Plots against Jordan were another sign of serious instability in the relations between Middle Eastern nations. Now the legally established Government of Iraq had been overthrown in an especially brutal manner. In these circumstances, the President of Lebanon had asked, with the unanimous authorization of the Lebanese Government, for the help of friendly Governments so as to preserve Lebanese integrity and independence.
The United States had responded positively to that request and wished the Council to be officially advised of that fact. United States forces were not in Lebanon to engage in hostilities of any kind, but for the sole purpose of helping the Government of Lebanon, at its request, in its efforts to stabilize the situation brought on by the threats from outside, until such time as the United Nations could take the steps necessary to protect the independence and political integrity of Lebanon.
The United States representative said that his Government was the first to admit that the dispatch of its forces to Lebanon was not an ideal way to solve the present problems. They would be withdrawn as soon as the United Nations could take over. Until then, the presence of United States troops in Lebanon would be a constructive contribution to the objectives the Security Council had had in mind when it had passed its resolution of 11 June 1958.
The Secretary-General, reviewing the action he had taken under the mandate given to him by the Council's resolution of 11 June, stated that it had had no relation to developments which must be considered as the internal affairs of Lebanon. Nor had he, either in his implementation of the resolution or acting under the United Nations Charter, concerned himself with international aspects of the problem wider than those referred to in the resolution. As a matter of course, he had striven to give the Observation operation the highest possible efficiency. He informed the Council that throughout the northern border areas north of Tripoli, arrangements had been made for full freedom of movement and access by the Observers, while in the region north of Bekaa the Group had that morning formalized its previous requests for full freedom of access.
The Lebanese representative declared that, since the submission of his Government's comments, the situation in Lebanon had deteriorated continuously: convoys of armed men and weapons were entering Lebanon from Syria, and preparations were under way for a major offensive against the Lebanese Government with a view to overthrowing it. The danger had become even more imminent following the coup d'état in Iraq. The Lebanese Government consequently asked the Council urgently to take more effective measures than those it had already taken and which might lead to the fulfilment of the purpose which the Council had originally set itself, namely, the prevention of any matériel or armed men entering Lebanon from outside.
Pending fulfilment of the action which it asked the Council to take, the Government of Lebanon had decided to implement Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (relating to the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence), and it had sought the direct assistance of friendly countries. That assistance was to be temporary, continuing only until the entry into force of the action requested of the Council, when the forces of friendly countries who would have sent troops to Lebanon would immediately have to evacuate its territory.
The representatives of Canada, China, France and the United Kingdom expressed the view that the United States action was in full accord with the United Nations Charter and the established rules of international law.
The USSR representative declared that the facts showed that Lebanon was threatened and continued to be threatened, not by the alleged intervention of the United Arab Republic, but by direct military intervention on the part of the United States, which sought to maintain the Chamoun Government in power. The United States and others, he said, had hoped to take advantage of the United Nations Observers to justify their designs, but had been disappointed by the objective position taken by the Observation group. Since the request for intervention had been inspired by the United States State Department, it could not be used to justify an armed act of aggression against the peoples of the Arab world.
The action of the United States, he maintained, was a gross violation of the Charter, which prohibited the use of force as a means of foreign policy. The Security Council was already acting in Lebanon, and, as the report of the Observation group showed, not only had no one attacked Lebanon but there was not even a threat of armed attack upon it except by those who were carrying out armed intervention. A solution for the problems of Lebanon and Iraq was within the exclusive competence of the people of those countries and any armed intervention on the part of the Western Powers was fraught with the most serious consequences.
The USSR representative submitted a draft resolution by which the Council would, among other things, call upon the United States "to cease armed intervention in the domestic affairs of the Arab States and to remove its troops from the territory of Lebanon immediately".
The representative of the United Arab Republic said that the situation in Lebanon had improved greatly: both Government forces and rebels had virtually eased hostilities, while political solution between the Lebanese themselves was being explored. The armed intervention of the United States could only aggravate the situation. Article 51 of the Charter did not allow for such intervention, and even more important was the fact that the Council had been seized of the issue and had adopted a resolution which was being implemented at the time a member of the Council had suddenly decided to intervene unilaterally. It was obvious, he continued, that the Iraqi revolution had prompted the United States to take that grave decision, but that revolution, which was undeniably a domestic question of Iraq, could in no case be invoked as an excuse.
The United States submitted a draft resolution on 15 July. By the preamble to the draft, as subsequently revised, the Council would note the statement of the representative of Lebanon that infiltration was continuing and the request of the Government of Lebanon for assistance. It would also note the statement of the United States representative that United States forces would remain in Lebanon only until the United Nations itself was able to assume the necessary responsibility to ensure the continued independence of Lebanon or that the danger was otherwise terminated.
By the operative part of the United States draft as revised, the Council would invite the Observation Group to continue to develop its activities pursuant to the Council resolution of 11 June; request the Secretary-General immediately to consult the Government of Lebanon and other Member States as appropriate with a view to making such additional arrangements, including the contribution and use of contingents, as might be necessary to protect the territorial integrity and independence of Lebanon and to ensure that there was no illegal infiltration of personnel or supply of arms or other matériel across the Lebanese borders; and call for the immediate cessation of all irregular infiltration as well as attacks upon the Government of Lebanon by government-controlled radio and other information media calculated to stimulate disorders.
On 16 July, the Observation Group submitted an interim report stating that, on 15 July, it had completed the task of obtaining full freedom of access to all sections of the Lebanese frontier.
The Security Council continued discussion of the question in the course of two meetings on 16 July.
In the course of these meetings, the Secretary-General expressed the hope that the Observation Group would retain its key position, although it might not, he said, be the only tool used by the United Nations in its total effort of ensuring against infiltration and smuggling of arms.
The United States representative said that his proposal fully supported and sought to strengthen the operations of the Observer Group. It provided the basis for additional arrangements by the Secretary-General to make contingents available as necessary as a further measure to protect the territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon and to en sure that there was no illegal infiltration of arms or other matériel across the Lebanese borders. In addition, the proposal would make it possible for the United States forces to withdraw promptly if the draft resolution were quickly carried out.
The USSR representative, in turn, said that although the United States representative praised the Observer Group, the results of its work were completely ignored, rejected or doubted. As soon as the work of the United Nations happened not to coincide with the policy of the United States, the United States turned its back on the United Nations. The course for the Council to take had been mapped out in the USSR draft, which invited the Council to take such steps as would lead to an end to the intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Arab States, an end to intervention in the domestic affairs of Lebanon, and the immediate withdrawal of United States forces from Lebanon.
The representative of Sweden did not consider that the action taken in Lebanon had been in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, since there had been neither an armed attack nor an international conflict within the terms of that Article. In his view, the action taken by the United States had substantially altered the conditions of the observation activities in Lebanon; the proper course might be to suspend until further notice the activities of the Observers in Lebanon.
On 17 July the Secretary-General transmitted to the Security Council the second interim report of the Observation Group, which suggested to the Secretary-General that a force of unarmed non-commissioned personnel and other ranks should be assigned to it. It also indicated that the number of Observers would have to be raised to 200, and described its aircraft and air personnel requirements. With the envisaged increase in the Observer force and the addition of enlisted personnel and supporting equipment, direct and constant patrolling of the actual frontier would be possible. The Secretary-General stated that he fully endorsed this plan.
On 17 July, the representative of Jordan asked the Council, by letter, to consider urgently the following item: "Complaint by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of interference in its domestic affairs by the United Arab Republic".
On 17 July the Security Council decided to consider the Lebanese and Jordanian complaints concurrently and invited the representative of Jordan to participate in the discussion. The USSR representative said that the fact that his delegation did not object to inclusion of the Jordanian item did not mean that it endorsed its contents or recognized that the charges of Jordan against the United Arab Republic were valid. On the other hand, inclusion of the item would enable the Council thoroughly to consider a question which had a direct bearing on the situation in the Near East, especially as regards Jordan – that is, the question of the armed intervention of the United Kingdom in Jordan.
The Jordanian representative declared that his Government had been subjected for more than a year to continuous attempts to over-throw it by subversive elements employed from outside. Jordan had continued to deal with all the varied forms of aggression coming from the United Arab Republic until it had recently been faced with an imminent threat to its safety and integrity which it could not cope with unaided. Jordan was threatened with events similar to those in Lebanon and Iraq: there had been movements of United Arab Republic troops from Syria along its northern borders and a number of Jordanian army officers had been arrested the previous week, whose intention was, investigation had disclosed, to destroy Jordan's independence and integrity.
Faced with such a threat, the Jordan Government had asked the United Kingdom and the United States to come to its immediate aid. It had done so with the King's approval and basing itself on the unanimous decision of the Jordanian National Assembly, and in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter. In a generous response to that request, British troops had been landing on Jordanian territory since the early morning of 17 July.
The United Kingdom representative said that his Government had no doubt whatever that a fresh attempt was being prepared to over-throw the regime in Jordan and to create internal disorder. In the light of that knowledge, the movements of Syrian forces towards the northern frontier of Jordan had been ominous developments. Jordan's appeal for assistance from friendly Governments in maintaining its independence was natural and entirely justified in the circumstances. There was nothing either in the United Nations Charter or in the established rules of international law to inhibit a Government from asking a friendly Government for military assistance as a defensive measure when it considered itself to be in danger.
The United Kingdom spokesman went on to say that the British forces being dispatched by air were in Jordan to help preserve its political independence and territorial integrity. They were not there for any military purpose of their own, and their presence did not constitute a threat to any other country. If arrangements could be made by the Council to protect the lawful Government in Jordan from external threat and to maintain peace and security, the action which his Government had felt obliged to take would be brought to an end.
The United States representative said that his Government supported the action of the United Kingdom. It was at this stage that he submitted the revised version of the United States draft proposal (referred to above) in response to suggestions which had been made to him informally. He regretted the suggestion of the Swedish representative that the Observation Group might have to suspend its activities. Rather, they should be expanded and intensified and the United Nations role should be increased by the contingents mentioned in the United States proposal. The fact confronting the United Nations, he said, was indirect aggression; if it did not meet that challenge, it would invite subversion all over the world.
The USSR representative said that Jordan was not threatened by anyone. The invasion by British troops showed that there was a conspiracy between the United Kingdom and the United States against the peace-loving peoples of the Near and Middle East and particularly against the liberation movement of the Arab peoples. He introduced a revised version of the USSR draft resolution so that it would deal with the introduction of United Kingdom forces into Jordan as well as with the introduction of United States armed forces into Lebanon. By this text, the Council would call upon the United States and the United Kingdom to cease armed intervention in the domestic affairs of the Arab States and to remove their troops from the territories of Lebanon and Jordan immediately.
The representative of the United Arab Republic said that the Jordanian complaint was clearly a pretext for the British intervention. The decision of the head of the Jordanian State to request the return of British troops to his country must be regretted. Nobody threatened Jordan.
The Swedish representative also submitted a draft resolution on 17 July. By this, the Council, considering that the action taken by United States Government had substantially altered the conditions under which the Council had decided on 11 June to send Observers to Lebanon, until further notice, and would decide to keep the item on its agenda.
After further discussion by the Council at meetings held on 17 and 18 July, during which reference was made to the question of the representation of Iraq on the Council, the various proposals were put to the vote.
The revised USSR draft resolution was rejected by 8 votes to 1 (USSR), with 2 abstentions (Japan and Sweden). The revised United States draft resolution received 9 votes in favour, 1 against (USSR), with 1 abstention (Sweden), and was not adopted, as the negative vote was that of a permanent member of the Council. The Swedish draft resolution was rejected by 9 votes to 2 (Sweden and USSR).
The United States representative then submitted another draft resolution, which he was willing to withhold in view of Japan's intention, expressed earlier in the debate, to submit its own proposal to the Council.
By the new United States draft, the Council, taking into account the fact that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members had prevented it from exercising its primary responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security, would decide to call an emergency special session of the General Assembly in order to make appropriate recommendations concerning the Lebanon complaint.
The representative of the USSR also submitted a draft resolution on 18 July by which, among other things, the Council would decide to call an emergency special session of the Assembly in order to consider the question of the intervention of the United States and the United Kingdom in Lebanon and Jordan.
On 19 July Japan submitted a draft resolution which was revised on 21 July. By the revised text, the Council would, among other things, ask the Secretary-General to make arrangements forthwith for such measures, in addition to those envisaged by the Council's resolution of 11 June, as he might consider necessary to enable the United Nations to fulfil the general purposes established in that resolution and which would, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, serve to ensure the territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon, so as to make possible the withdrawal of United States forces from that country.
After further discussion at meetings held on 21 and 22 July, the USSR representative submitted various amendments to the revised Japanese draft resolution so that, among other things, the Council would ask the Secretary-General to carry out, in addition to the measures envisaged by the resolution of 11 June, the plan submitted by the observation group in its second report, to enable the United Nations to fulfil the general purposes established in that resolution, which would, in accordance with the Charter, serve to ensure the territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon. Considering that the landing of United States troops in Lebanon constituted intervention in the domestic affairs of that country, the Council would also call upon the United States to withdraw its armed forces from Lebanon immediately.
On 22 July, the Security Council rejected these amendments by 8 votes to 1 (USSR), with 2 abstentions (Japan and Sweden). The revised Japanese draft resolution received 10 votes in favour to one against (USSR) and was not adopted in view of the negative vote cast by a permanent member of the Council.
The Secretary-General then stated that although the Council had failed to take additional action in the grave emergency facing it, the responsibility of the United Nations to make all efforts to live up to the purposes and principles of the Charter still remained. He was sure that he would be acting in accordance with the wishes of the members of the Council if he used all opportunities offered to him within the limits set by the Charter and towards developing the United Nations effort "so as to help to prevent a further deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and to assist in finding a road away from the dangerous point at which we now find ourselves". The continued operation of the Observation Group being acceptable to all members of the Council, that would mean the further development of the Group, so as to give it all the significance it could have consistent with its basic character as determined by the Council resolution of 11 June and the purposes and principles of the Charter. Were the members of the Council to disapprove of the way those intentions would be translated into practical steps, he would, of course, accept the consequences of their judgement.
The President of the Council noted that the Secretary-General had established that the United Nations could not remain passive in the face of such an emergency. He also pointed out that the Parliament of Lebanon was to elect a new President at the end of the week, and that the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR had invited various heads of State to meet with him and the Secretary-General to seek a solution that could be recommended to the Council (see also section below on COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING PROPOSALS FOR A MEETING OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENT). In addition, he noted that the United States and the USSR had proposed the convening of a special emergency session of the Assembly.
He then proposed that the meeting adjourn. The Council adopted this proposal by 10 votes to 1 (USSR).
DEVELOPMENTS LEADING TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 7 AUGUST
On 30 July, the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon submitted another report, covering its activities and observations from 2 to 15 July. The report stated that the impact of the landing of United States armed forces in the Beirut area on 15 July on the inhabitants of the opposition-held areas where Observers were operating had occasioned difficulties and caused setback to the task of observation. The efforts of the Group to solve the new problems were meeting with some success. The Group stated that it had received no reports from its Observers subsequent to 15 July which would tend to alter the general nature of the evaluation made in the present report.
In the conclusion to the report it was stated that the infiltration of arms which might be taking place could not be on anything more than a limited scale and was largely confined to small arms and ammunition. In conditions of civil conflict, when the frontier was open and unguarded practically throughout its length, some movement of that kind might well be expected. As to the illegal infiltration of personnel, the nature of the frontier, the existence of traditional tribal and other ties on both sides of it, and the free movement of produce in both directions were among the factors which must be taken into account in making an evaluation. In no case however, had United Nations Observers, who had been vigilantly patrolling the opposition-held areas and had frequently observed the armed bands there, been able to detect the presence of persons who had indubitably entered from across the border for the purpose of fighting. From the observations made of the arms and organization obtaining in the opposition-held areas, the fighting strength of opposition elements could not successfully cope with hostilities against a well-armed regular military force.
On 5 August, the permanent representative of Iraq informed the Secretary-General that, in view of a declaration by Jordan of the termination of the Arab Union as from 1 August 1958, his mission as permanent representative of Iraq, accredited as such by the Government of the Arab Union, was ended. On 6 August, the Secretary-General submitted a report to the Council on the credentials of the Iraqi representative. He stated that he had been officially notified by the Republic of Iraq that it considered all obligations arising from the Arab Union as null and void. He had also been notified by Jordan that it considered the Constitution of the Arab Union as in abeyance and inapplicable. Referring to a letter of 15 July from the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Iraq, which stated that Hashim Jawad had been appointed as Iraqi representative on the Security Council, the Secretary-General said he considered these credentials to be in order.
By a letter of 5 August the USSR representative asked the President of the Security Council to call an immediate emergency meeting of the Council to consider the draft resolution submitted by the USSR on 18 July proposing an emergency special session of the General Assembly.
In a letter of 7 August to the President of the Security Council, the representative of Jordan listed details of various incidents in Jordan between 10 and 30 July 1958, for circulation among Council members.
The Council met on 7 August at the request of the USSR and considered revised texts of the USSR and United States draft resolutions of 18 July. After considerable discussion, during which reference was made to the failure of attempts to secure a meeting of heads of Governments to consider the matter, the Council adopted unanimously a further-modified version of the United States draft proposal. By this the Council, taking into account – among other things – that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members at its meetings of 18 and 22 July had prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, decided to call an emergency special session of the General Assembly.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S THIRD EMERGENCY SPECIAL SESSION
The third emergency special session of the General Assembly was convened by the Secretary-General on 8 August 1958 in accordance with the resolution adopted by the Security Council on 7 August. Fifteen plenary meetings were held from 8 to 21 August.
At the opening meeting, the Secretary-General noted that the arrangements by which the United Nations, through the United Nations Emergency Force, assisted the Government of the United Arab Republic in Gaza and along the international frontier between Egypt and Israel had worked out satisfactorily. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization had also continued to function as an essential element in United Nations efforts to stabilize conditions in the area. A third operation, the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon, had already rendered very useful service, and its further development was, in the light of experience, fully justified.
However, the Secretary-General continued, the existing operation was related to conditions which might be temporary and the time might not be too distant when a change in these conditions would call for a change of approach. Recent experience might indicate that some form of United Nations representation in Lebanon might be a desirable expression of the continued concern of the Organization for the independence and integrity of that country. These arrangements, when and if they become appropriate, would depend ultimately on the attitude of Lebanon itself.
Jordan, he said, was another part of the Middle East region presenting specific problems. It appeared that the United Nations should give special attention to the essential role which Jordan had to play in the efforts of the Organization to assist in creating conditions for peaceful and constructive development. Some strengthening of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, within the framework of the General Armistice Agreements, might have to be considered.
The various arrangements, the Secretary-General noted, were only safeguards created to assist the Governments concerned. Arab nations already had co-operated within the Arab League and they all had subscribed to the following principles: mutual respect for each others territory, integrity and sovereignty; non-aggression; non-interference in each other's affairs; and equal and mutual benefit. If the States concerned in the existing troubled situation were jointly to reaffirm their adherence to such principles, it would be of considerable assistance to the general efforts in which the United Nations was engaged. To the extent that the Arab nations would find it possible to translate those principles into joint practical action, the Organization should be prepared to render assistance of a technical nature and to give the necessary support, especially in the field of economic co-operation.
On 12 August, the USSR submitted a draft resolution by which the Assembly, recognizing the necessity of adopting urgent measures for the relaxation of tension in the area of the Near and Middle East in the interests of preserving universal peace, would recommend that the United States and the United Kingdom withdraw their troops from the territory of Lebanon and Jordan without delay. It would also instruct the Secretary-General to strengthen the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon in accordance with the plan presented in the Group's second report, and to send an Observation Group to Jordan with a view to the supervision of the withdrawal of the United States and United Kingdom troops from Lebanon and Jordan, and of the situation along the frontiers of those countries.
On 13 August, at the second meeting of the Assembly's third emergency special session, a statement was made by the President of the United States, who emphasized that United States troops would be totally withdrawn from Lebanon whenever that was requested by the duly constituted Government of Lebanon or whenever, through action by the United Nations, Lebanon was no longer exposed to the original danger represented by the fomenting of civil strife in the interests of a foreign power. He hoped that the Assembly would consider how it could assure the continued independence and integrity of Lebanon. If the United Nations did not act promptly in Jordan, he added, a further dangerous crisis might result, for the method of indirect aggression discernible there might lead to conflicts endangering the peace. He hoped that the Assembly would be able to give expression to the interests of the United Nations in preserving the peace in Jordan.
He also outlined a number of proposals concerning the economic development of the area, including the establishment of a regional Arab development institution governed by the Arab States themselves and making use of international capital.
On 14 August, a further report of the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon was submitted to the Council through the Secretary-General. The Group stated that it had made an announcement on 16 July to the effect, among other things, that it was in Lebanon solely in pursuance of the mandate contained in the Security Council's resolution of 11 June and that it represented the only action taken by the Council. By dint of their perseverance and tact in dealing with difficult and often dangerous situations, the Observers had won back the ground lost after 15 July. Most of the permanent stations in opposition-held areas envisaged in the Group's second interim report had already been established, and other stations were expected to be established shortly. The election of General Chehab as the new President of Lebanon had taken place on 31 July. During the period immediately preceding the elections there had been a noticeable reduction in tension practically throughout the country and a comparative absence of armed clashes between Government and opposition forces. Since 31 July there had been a virtual nation-wide truce with only occasional reports of sporadic firing in some areas.
In a letter of 18 August 1958 to the President of the General Assembly, the Secretary of State of the United States said that United States forces were in Lebanon in response to an appeal of the duly constituted Government of that country for assistance in maintaining Lebanon's territorial integrity and political independence as against danger from without. These forces would be withdrawn whenever this was requested by the duly constituted Government of Lebanon, or whenever, as a result of the further action of the United Nations or otherwise, their presence was no longer required. The United States would, in any event, abide by a determination of the General Assembly that action taken for assistance furnished by the United Nations made the continued presence of United States forces in Lebanon unnecessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
In a letter of the same date, also addressed to the President of the General Assembly, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom made a statement in similar terms regarding United Kingdom forces in Jordan.
On 18 August, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Liberia, Norway, Panama and Paraguay submitted a four-part draft resolution. Noting the declaration made in the above-mentioned letters from the United States and the United Kingdom and noting the Charter aim that States should "practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours", the Assembly would, by the first part of the text: (1) reaffirm its view (as set forth in Assembly resolution 290 (IV) of 1 December 1949) that all Member States should "refrain from any threats or acts, direct or indirect, aimed at impairing the freedom, independence or integrity of any State, or at fomenting civil strife and subverting the will of the people of any State"; and (2) call upon all Member States to observe those obligations and to ensure that their conduct in relation to the general area of the Near East conform to that policy.
By the second part, the Assembly would ask the Secretary-General, in accordance with the Charter, forthwith to make such practical arrangements as he, in consultation with the Governments concerned, might find would adequately serve to help in upholding the purposes and principles of the Charter in relation to Lebanon and Jordan in present circumstances.
The third part, noting that the Secretary-General had studies in preparation for consideration by the Assembly's thirteenth regular session of the feasibility of establishing a stand-by United Nations peace force, would invite the Secretary-General to continue his studies and to consult as appropriate with the Arab countries of the Near East with a view to possible assistance regarding an Arab development institution designed to further economic growth in those countries.
By the fourth part, the Assembly would ask Member States to cooperate fully and would invite the Secretary-General to report as appropriate, his first report to be made not later than 30 September 1958.
In the course of the discussion held by the Assembly from 8 to 21 August, the majority of speakers supported the principles embodied in the seven-power joint draft resolution.
Several speakers also stated that the USSR resolution of 12 August should be given serious consideration. A number of delegations regarded the seven-power draft resolution as inadequate, holding that it failed to meet the issue of prompt withdrawal of United States forces from Lebanon and of United Kingdom forces from Jordan.
Various suggestions were advanced during the course of the discussion for improvement of the situation in the Middle East generally.
On 21 August, as a result of extensive consultation during the discussions, a four-part draft resolution was introduced by Sudan on behalf of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Republic and Yemen.
By the first part of this 10-power proposal, the General Assembly, referring among other things to the Pact of the League of Arab States, should: (1) welcome the renewed assurances given by the Arab States to observe the provision of article 8 of the Pact that each member State would respect the systems of government established in other member States and regard them as exclusive concerns of those States, and that each would pledge to abstain from any action calculated to change established systems of government; and (2) call upon all members of the United Nations to act strictly in accordance with the principles of mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, of non-aggression, of strict non- interference in each other's internal affairs, and of equal and mutual benefit, and to ensure that their conduct conformed to those principles.
By the second part of this text, the Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to make forth-with, in consultation with the Governments concerned and in accordance with the Charter, and having in mind the first part of the resolution, such practical arrangements as would adequately help to uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter in relation to Lebanon and Jordan in the present circumstances, and thereby facilitate the early withdrawal of the foreign troops from the two countries.
By the third part of the proposal, the Assembly would invite the Secretary-General to continue his current studies and in that context to consult as appropriate with the Arab countries of the Near East with a view to possible assistance regarding an Arab development institution designed to further economic growth in those countries.
By the fourth part, the Assembly would ask United Nations Member States to co-operate fully in carrying out the resolution, and invite the Secretary-General to report as appropriate, his first report to be made not later than 30 September 1958.
After the USSR and the sponsors of the seven-power draft resolution had indicated that they would not press for priority for their proposals, the General Assembly adopted the 10-power draft resolution unanimously on 21 August as resolution 1237 (ES-III).
REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL AND CONCLUSION OF WORK
OF OBSERVATION GROUP IN LEBANON
On 29 September 1958, the Secretary-General submitted his first report in accordance with the General Assembly's resolution of 21 August. After analyzing the resolution and his task thereunder, he reviewed in this report the consultations he had carried out during a visit to the capitals of the nations most directly concerned.
Dealing with the practical arrangements to be made for the purposes mentioned in the resolution, he noted that, in the case of Lebanon, the United Nations already had extensive arrangements for keeping within its purview one aspect of the implementation of the good-neighbour policy, namely, ensuring against possible infiltration or smuggling of arms across the border. The work of the Observation Group had had to be re-evaluated with a view to deciding upon its possible role within the new set of practical arrangements to be made.
The Secretary-General went on to say that the Government of Jordan had restated its position, previously expressed in the General Assembly, that it accepted neither the stationing of a United Nations force in Jordan nor the organization of a broader observation group in the country for purposes similar to those served by UNOGIL in Lebanon. Since, from the beginning, it had also been his view that neither a United Nations force nor a border observation group would adequately serve the purposes of the resolution in relation to Jordan, he had accepted that stand. "Consequently", he said, "the consultations in Jordan were limited to other forms of United Nations involvement, both sides being guided by the wish to see such an involvement developed in a form which would support the policies of co-operation to which all Arab States, in co-sponsoring the Assembly resolution, had pledged themselves".
The Secretary-General went on to say that "the basis for the consideration was the need to provide . . . both for keeping current developments under the resolution in relation to Jordan within purview and for proper diplomatic arrangements for any subsequent action by the United Nations which might he rendered necessary by the findings made".
Jordan had stated its willingness to serve as host country for a United Nations representative, properly staffed, to serve "as a special representative of the Secretary-General to assist in the implementation of the resolution, specifically with a view to help in upholding the purposes and principles of the Charter in relation to Jordan in the present circumstances". Lebanon and the United Arab Republic had both undertaken to grant all the facilities, including liaison offices in Beirut and Damascus, needed in support of the establishment of a United Nations Organ in Jordan. Pier P. Spinelli, Under-Secretary in charge of the United Nations Office in Geneva, had gone to Amman on 27 September to work out the necessary practical arrangements and was to serve as special representative on a preliminary basis.
With regard to the withdrawal of the United States and British forces, the Secretary-General said that he had been informed that it was the intention of the Lebanese and United States Governments, which were discussing a schedule for the completion of the withdrawal of United States forces, that the total withdrawal might begin in the near future, to be completed as expeditiously as possible – they hoped by the end of October – provided the international security situation with respect to Lebanon continued to improve in the framework of a successful implementation of the first part of the resolution of 21 August. Jordan and the United Kingdom were discussing the fixing of times for the beginning and the completion of the withdrawal of the British forces. It was their intention that, provided satisfactory progress was being made, the withdrawal would begin during the month of October and that it could be completed as quickly as the situation in the area allowed. Memoranda from the United States and United Kingdom Governments were annexed to the report.
As to assistance in economic cooperation, the Secretary-General said that on 26 September he had addressed identical letters to the 10 Arab Governments which had sponsored the Assembly resolution of 21 August, in which he had set out in what respects, at various stages of the development, the United Nations might be of assistance, were the Governments to wish to avail themselves of the services of the Organization in their joint economic efforts.
In its report circulated on 29 September 1958 and covering its activities from 11 August to 20 September, UNOGIL stated that, during the period under review, its Military Observers had not only been able to re-establish confidence in the independent nature of their activities, but had won for themselves the trust and understanding of all sections of the population among whom they voted. Despite the presence of a considerable number of men under arms, there had been no significant clashes between the Lebanese armed forces and organized opposition forces. No cases of infiltration had been detected, and if any infiltration was still taking place its extent must be regarded as insignificant.
On 1 October, the United Kingdom representative informed the Secretary-General by letter that his Government had agreed with the Jordan Government that the withdrawal of British troops would begin on 20 October. On 8 October, the United States announced that by agreement with the Government of Lebanon it had been decided to complete withdrawal of United States forces from Lebanon by the end of October.
On 10 November, the Secretary-General submitted a report, to which were annexed letters from the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, to the effect that the withdrawal of the United States troops from Lebanon had been completed on 25 October and the withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from Jordan had been completed on 2 November 1958. Steps had recently been taken looking towards normalization of air and overland transport in relation to Jordan.
On 10 December, the Secretary-General submitted a report on the role of the United Nations in connexion with the air lift of British troops from Amman to Cyprus over the territory of the United Arab Republic and Lebanon. The successful conclusion of the operation, he stated, was a tribute to the ready co-operation and technical skill of all parties concerned.
REMOVAL OF LEBANESE COMPLAINT FROM AGENDA OF SECURITY COUNCIL;
WITHDRAWAL OF UNOGIL
On 16 November 1958, the Foreign Minister of Lebanon informed the President of the Security Council by letter that cordial and close relations between Lebanon and the United Arab Republic had resumed their normal course. Conscious of the higher interests of the Lebanese people and the need to safeguard peace and security in the area, and in the spirit which had led to the unanimous adoption of the decision taken by the General Assembly on 21 August at its third emergency special session, Lebanon intended in the future to strengthen its co-operation with the United Arab Republic and other Arab States still further. For that reason, and in order to dispel any misunderstanding which might hamper the development of such relations, the Lebanese Government requested the Council to delete the Lebanese complaint of 22 May 1958 from the list of matters before it and to ask the Secretary- General to communicate its decision to the General Assembly.
In a report circulated on 17 November, the Observation Group stated that the evacuation of United States troops from Lebanon had been completed without incident on 25 October. Organized opposition forces had been disbanded and the Government was in process of extending its authority over the whole country. In view of the absence for some time of any reports of infiltration of personnel or smuggling of arms and of the recent marked improvement in the general security situation in Lebanon and in the relations between Lebanon and its eastern neighbour, the Group had come to the conclusion that its task under the 11 June resolution of the Council might now be regarded as completed and recommended that the withdrawal of UNOGIL should be undertaken.
In a letter of 17 November to the President of the Security Council, the Secretary-General referred both to the letter from the Foreign Minister of Lebanon and to UNOGIL's recommendation and stated that he had instructed the Group to present, in consultation with the Government of Lebanon, a detailed plan for the withdrawal. He had taken that step under the authorization given to him by the Council resolution of 11 June. The instruction given to the observation group implied that he considered its task as completed and that his remaining duty under the resolution thus covered only the necessary measures for liquidation of the operation.
On 21 November, the Secretary-General submitted a report on a plan for withdrawal of the operation formulated by the Observation Group, which was acceptable to the Government of Lebanon, and stated that it had his approval.
On 25 November 1958 the Security Council agreed to delete the complaint submitted to it on 22 May 1958 by the Government of Lebanon from the list of matters of which it was seized.
By a letter of 25 November, the Secretary-General informed the President of the General Assembly of the Council's action.
The last United Nations Military Observers left Beirut on 9 December, when the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon officially ceased its operations.
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 11 JUNE
SECURITY COUNCIL, meetings 818, 822-825.
S/4007, S/4018, Letters of 22 May and 2 June 1958 from representative of Lebanon.
S/4022 Sweden draft resolution.
S/4023. Resolution, as submitted by Sweden, S/4022, adopted by Council on 11 June 1958, meeting 825, by 10 votes to 0, with 1 abstention (USSR).
"The Security Council,
"Having heard the charges of the representative of Lebanon concerning interference by the United Arab Republic in the internal affairs of Lebanon and the reply of the representative of the United Arab Republic,
"Decides to dispatch urgently an observation group to proceed to Lebanon so as to ensure that there is no illegal infiltration of personnel or supply of arms or other materiél across the Lebanese borders;
"Authorizes the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps to that end;
"Requests the observation group to keep the Security Council currently informed through the Secretary-General."
INTERIM REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL AND FIRST REPORT OF UNOGIL
S/4029. Report by Secretary-General of 16 June on implementation to date of resolution of Security Council of 11 June 1958 on complaint by Lebanon.
S/4038 and Corr.1 Further report of 28 June by Secretary-General on implementation of resolution of security Council of 11 June 1958 on complaint of Lebanon.
S/4040 and Corr.1 and Add.1. First report of UNOGIL.
S/4043. Letter of 8 July 1958 from permanent representative of Lebanon enclosing "Official Comments of Government of Lebanon on First Report of Observation Group in Lebanon".
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINT BY LEBANON;
COMPLAINT BY JORDAN
SECURITY COUNCIL, meetings 827-837.
S/4047 and Corr.1. USSR draft resolution.
S/4047/Rev.1. USSR revised draft resolution.
S/4050 and Corr.1 and Rev.1. United States draft resolution and revision.
S/4051. Interim report of UNOGIL.
S/4052. Second interim report of UNOGIL.
S/4053. Letter of 17 July 1958 from representative of Jordan.
S/4054. Sweden draft resolution.
S/4055. and Rev.1. Japan draft resolution and revision.
S/4056. United States draft resolution.
S/4057. USSR draft resolution.
S/4063. USSR amendments to Japan revised draft resolution, S/4055/Rev.1.
DEVELOPMENTS LEADING TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 7 AUGUST
SECURITY COUNCIL, meeting 838.
S/4056/Rev.1. United States revised draft resolution.
S/4057 and Rev.1. USSR draft resolution and revision.
S/4069. Second report of UNOGIL.
S/4078. Letter of 5 August 1958 from representative of USSR.
S/4082. Letter of 7 August 1958 from representative of Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
S/4083. Resolution, as submitted by United States, S/4056/Rev.1, and as orally amended in Council, adopted unanimously by Council on 7 August 1958, meeting 838.
"The Security Council,
"Having considered items 2 and 3 on its agenda as contained in document S/Agenda/838,
"Taking into account that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members at the 834th and 837th meetings of the Security Council has prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,
"Decides to call an emergency special session of the General Assembly."
S/4085. Third report of UNOGIL.
S/4100. Fourth report of UNOGIL.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S THIRD EMERGENCY SPECIAL SESSION
GENERAL ASSEMBLY-THIRD EMERGENCY SPECIAL SESSION
Plenary meetings 732-746.
A/3866. Note by Secretary-General.
A/3867. Provisional agenda of 3rd emergency special session.
A/3869. Letter of 7 August 1958 from permanent representative of Czechoslovakia, transmitting statement of Czechoslovak Government on Middle East issued in Prague on 6 August 1958.
A/3870 and Corr.1. USSR draft resolution.
A/3876. Letter of 18 August 1958 from Secretary of State of United States.
A/3877. Letter of 18 August 1958 from Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of United Kingdom.
A/3878. Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Liberia, Norway, Panama, Paraguay draft resolution.
A/3892. Letter of 21 August 1958 from permanent representative of Czechoslovakia transmitting letter from Minister for Foreign Affairs of German Democratic Republic.
A/3893/Rev.1. Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan Tunisia, United Arab Republic, Yemen draft resolution.
RESOLUTION 1237 (ES-III), as submitted by 10 powers A/3893/Rev.1, adopted unanimously by Assembly on 21 August 1958, meeting 746.
"The General Assembly,
"Having considered the item entitled `Questions considered by the Security Council at its 838th meeting on 7 August 1958',
"Noting the Charter aim that States should practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,
"Noting that the Arab States have agreed, in the Pact of the League of Arab States, to strengthen the close relations and numerous ties which link the Arab States, and to support and stabilize these ties upon a basis of respect for the independence and sovereignty of these States, and to direct their efforts toward the common good of all the Arab countries, the improvement of their status, the security of their future and the realization of their aspirations and hopes,
"Desiring to relieve international tension,
I
"1. Welcomes the renewed assurances given by the Arab States to observe the provision of article 8 of the Pact of the League of Arab States that each member State shall respect the systems of government established in the other member States and regard them as exclusive concerns of these States, and that each shall pledge to abstain from any action calculated to change established systems of government;
"2. Calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to act strictly in accordance with the principles of mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, of non-aggression, of strict non-interference in each other's internal affairs and of equal and mutual benefit, and to ensure that their conduct by word and deed conforms to these principles;
II
"Requests the Secretary-General to make forthwith in consultation with the Governments concerned and in accordance with the Charter, and having in mind section I of this resolution, such practical arrangements as would adequately help in upholding the purposes and principles of the Charter in relation to Lebanon and Jordan in the present circumstances, and thereby facilitate the early withdrawal of the foreign troops from the two countries;
III
"Invites the Secretary-General to continue his studies now under way and in this context to consult as appropriate with the Arab countries of the Near East with a view to possible assistance regarding an Arab development institution designed to further economic growth in these countries;
IV
"1. Requests Member States to co-operate fully in carrying out this resolution;
"2. Invites the Secretary-General to report hereunder, as appropriate, the first such report to be made not later than 30 September 1958."
REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL AND CONCLUSION OF WORK
OF OBSERVATION GROUP IN LEBANON
GENERAL ASSEMBLY – 13TH SESSION
A/3934/Rev.1. Report of Secretary-General.
A/3937. Note by Secretary-General transmitting letter of 1 October 1958 from permanent representative of United Kingdom.
A/3942. Note by Secretary-General transmitting letter of 8 October 1958 from representative of United States.
A/3986. Report of Secretary-General transmitting letters of 6 November 1958 from representative of United States and permanent representative of United Kingdom, respectively.
A/4008. Letter of 25 November 1958 from Secretary-General. Notification by Secretary-General under Article 12, paragraph 2, of Charter (on decision of Security Council to remove Lebanese complaint of 22 May 1958 from its agenda).
A/4056. Report of Secretary-General.
REMOVAL OF LEBANESE COMPLAINT FROM AGENDA OF SECURITY COUNCIL;
WITHDRAWAL OF UNOGIL
SECURITY COUNCIL, meeting 840.
S/4113. Letter of 16 November 1958 from Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lebanon.
S/4114. Fifth report of UNOGIL.
S/4115. Letter of 17 November 1958 from Secretary-General.
S/4116. Report by Secretary-General on plan for withdrawal of UNOGIL.
OTHER DOCUMENTS
REPRESENTATION OF IRAQ
S/3936 and Corr.1. Report by Secretary-General on credentials of alternate representatives of Iraq on Security Council.
S/3958, S/4009, S/4060, S/4080. Reports by Secretary-General on credentials of representative of Iraq on Security Council.
S/4081. Letter of 5 August 1958 from Permanent Delegation of Iraq.
COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING PROPOSALS FOR
A MEETING OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENTS
In a letter dated 20 July 1958, the permanent representative of the USSR transmitted to the Secretary-General the texts of messages which the head of the USSR Government had addressed on 19 July, to the heads of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and India, in which it was proposed that a meeting of these five heads of Governments be called on 22 July at Geneva in connexion with the conflict which had broken out in the Near and Middle East. The letter expressed the hope that the Secretary-General would support the proposal, would take part in the meeting and would contribute to the positive solution of the problem.
On 21 July, the Secretary-General replied to the USSR representative's letter. While expressing no personal opinion on any of the questions of substance raised, and leaving it to the heads of Governments to judge whether high-level meeting would provide the best means of improving on the disturbing situation, he said that should they agree on the desirability of such a meeting with the participation of the Secretary-General, he would consider it to be within his rights and duties to accept and would gladly do so.
Between 23 July and 5 August, the representative of the USSR transmitted to the Secretary-General the texts of a further series of messages from the head of the USSR Government. These were: messages addressed on 23 July to the heads of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and India; messages of 28 July addressed to the heads of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France; and messages of 5 August, addressed to the heads of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France.
On 1 August, the representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States and France transmitted to the Secretary-General copies of the communications which the heads of their respective Governments had addressed to the head of the USSR Government in reply to the latter's communications to them.
Also on 1 August, the representatives of the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States requested that a special meeting of the Security Council be convened on or about 12 August, pursuant to Article 28, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter, to discuss certain problems of the Middle East. (This clause in the Charter provides for "periodic meetings" of the Council "at which each of its members may, if it so desires, be represented by a member of the government or by some other specially designated representative".) It was further proposed that early consultations be held among the permanent representatives of the members of the Security Council, with the assistance of the Secretary-General, in order to reach agreement on the formulation of the item which the Council would discuss and on other pertinent matters of procedure.
No further action was taken in the Security Council with regard to the above proposals, inasmuch as the head of the USSR Government had, in his messages dated 5 August, indicated that his Government considered that the Security Council had shown itself unable to achieve a peaceful solution of the problem of the Near and Middle East, and had therefore instructed its representative at the United Nations to request the convening of a special session of the General Assembly to discuss the problem. (See also above, section on COMPLAINTS OF LEBANON AND JORDAN.)
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
S/4059. Letter of 20 July 1958 from representative of USSR to Secretary-General, transmitting texts of messages from Chairman of Council of Ministers of USSR to President of United States, Prime Minister of United Kingdom, President of Council of Ministers of France and Prime Minister of India.
S/4062. Letter of 21 July 1958 from Secretary-General to representative of USSR.
S/4064. Letter of 23 July 1958 from representative of USSR to Secretary-General, transmitting texts of messages from Chairman of the Council of Ministers of USSR to President of United States, Prime Minister of United Kingdom, President of Council of Ministers of France and Prime Minister of India.
S/4067. Letter of 28 July 1958 from representative of USSR to Secretary-General, transmitting texts of messages from Chairman of Council of Ministers of USSR to President of United States, Prime Minister of United Kingdom and President of Council of Ministers of France.
S/4071. Letter of 1 August 1958 from acting permanent representative of United Kingdom to Secretary-General, transmitting texts of letters from Prime Minister of United Kingdom to Chairman of Council of Ministers of USSR.
S/4072. Letter of 1 August 1958 from acting permanent representative of United Kingdom to President of Security Council requesting special meeting of Security Council under Article 28 of United Nations Charter.
S/4073. Letter of 1 August 1958 from representative of Canada to President of Security Council.
S/4074. Letter of 1 August 1958 from representative of United States to Secretary-General, transmitting copies of letters from President of United States to Chairman of Council of Ministers of USSR and requesting special meeting of Security Council pursuant to Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Charter.
S/4075. Letter of 1 August 1958 from representative of France to Secretary-General, transmitting texts of letters from President of Council of Ministers of French Republic to Chairman of Council of Ministers of USSR.
S/4079. Letter of 5 August 1958 from representative of USSR to Secretary-General, transmitting texts of messages from Chairman of Council of Ministers of USSR to Prime Minister of United Kingdom, President of Council of Ministers of France and President of United States.
THE UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE
During 1958, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), following the withdrawal in March 1957 of all foreign troops from Egyptian territory in compliance with Assembly resolutions, pursued its function of maintaining quiet along the border area between Israel and the Egyptian region of the United Arab Republic. Deployed on the Egyptian side of the border, the Force patrolled lines totalling 273 kilometres in length in the Gaza Strip and along the international frontier between the two countries, as well as in the Sharm el Sheikh region.
The Secretary-General submitted a progress report to the thirteenth session of the General Assembly in 1958 on the organization and functioning of the force, as well as on the financial arrangements connected with it, as he had done in 1957. In addition, he submitted a summary study of the experience derived from the establishment and operation of the Force.
The Secretary-General's progress report and the summary study were considered by the Assembly's Special Political Committee. Budget estimates for the maintenance of UNEF were considered by the Assembly's Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee.
PROGRESS REPORT
In his progress report on the Force – for the period between 9 October 1957 and 27 August 1958 – the Secretary-General stated that virtually unbroken quiet had prevailed along the entire line between Egypt and Israel; only 95 incidents had occurred during the period, all but a very few of which were minor ones.
Under the continued command of Lieutenant-General E. L. M. Burns, the Force was well organized and functioning smoothly, the Secretary-General reported. Except for a small reduction in its numerical strength resulting from the voluntary withdrawal of the Indonesian and Finnish contingents, which were only partially replaced, there were no major changes in the Force's organization, stationing and functions.
The Force, maintained during the period at approximately 5,400 officers and other ranks, was composed of contingents from eight contributing countries: Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, India, Norway, Sweden and Yugoslavia. The report added that any reduction of the Force below its present numerical strength would, in the Commander's opinion, lessen its effectiveness.
The Secretary-General reported also that the morale and general state of well-being of the Force continued to be excellent. Its supply and provisioning had become a routine matter and supply reserves in all categories were adequate. Relations between the Force and the local authorities and population in the Gaza Strip and Sinai were satisfactory, he added. Readjustment of the boundaries of the battalions deployed along the Armistice Demarcation Line, to conform to the local police district boundaries, had resulted in closer liaison and co-operation.
A joint draft resolution on the progress report was submitted in the Special Political Committee by Brazil, Canada, Ceylon, Colombia, India, Norway and Pakistan. By this proposal the General Assembly, noting with satisfaction both the report and the effective way in which UNEF had continued to carry out its functions, would ask the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee to take the necessary action to finance the continuing operation of the Force.
Bulgaria and the USSR proposed that the progress report and the summary study of the experience derived from the creation and operation of UNEF should be discussed together. Ceylon and Norway, however, considered that for practical reasons they should be taken up separately. By 31 votes to 9, with 18 abstentions, the Committee decided on separate consideration, beginning with the progress report.
Paying tribute to those concerned with the operation of the force, the representatives of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, France, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal and Yugoslavia declared that it was in the interest of the United Nations that the Force should continue its operations, as the Secretary-General had stated before the Committee. In the absence of a lasting settlement of some of the political problems connected with the original crisis, they maintained, the Force served as a stabilizing influence and was preventing incidents which might otherwise lead to renewed hostilities.
Some representatives found it disturbing that certain Member States refused to help finance the Force and that the balance of unpaid contributions was so high as to threaten its very existence. The establishment of the Force was, in their view, an expression of the collective will of the United Nations. All Members, therefore had a collective responsibility to cover the cost of its maintenance.
The representative of Italy observed in this connexion that it might be inconsistent for the Assembly to note with satisfaction (as proposed by the preamble of the seven-power draft) the Secretary-General's progress report when this report stated, among other things, that the record of contributions by Member States to the Special Account of UNEF was a matter of increasing concern. The Assembly should therefore limit its expression of satisfaction to the effective way in which the Force had continued to carry out its functions. This suggested amendment was accepted by the sponsors of the draft.
Argentina, Burma, Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico, Spain, Uruguay and Venezuela, while approving the suggested continuation of the Force, did not think that it should become permanent. They also thought that the scale of assessments was not equitable and that it should therefore be revised.
Mexico proposed two amendments to the seven-power draft. The first, which was accepted by the sponsors, aimed to make it clear that the Fifth Committee could only recommend, and not take, action to finance the continuing operation of the Force. The second amendment asked that the fifth Committee recommend action "on an equitable basis" to finance the continuing operation of the Force. The sponsors did not accept this amendment to add the phrase "on an equitable basis", as they felt it would imply that the scale of contributions previously applied had not been equitable. Moreover, it was the fifth Committee's function to determine the matter. Mexico did not press its second amendment to a vote.
Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and the USSR were among those who reiterated their opinion that the Security Council was the only organ competent to establish United Nations armed forces, and that UNEF had therefore been created by the General Assembly in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Charter. In their view, the fact that so many Member States were in arrears on their contributions to the Special Account for UNEF, or had failed to make any contributions at all, meant that these States rightly refused to assume responsibility for an aggression they had neither committed nor supported. The expenses of UNEF, they claimed, should be paid by the three States responsible for the aggression against Egypt. They further declared that their Governments would not assume any financial obligations in connexion with the Force and that they would vote against the draft resolution.
On 3 November 1958, the Committee adopted the seven-power draft resolution as amended by 49 to 9, with 13 abstentions. On 14 November it was adopted at a plenary meeting of the Assembly as resolution 1263(XIII) by a roll-call vote of 51 to 9, with 17 abstentions.
The Assembly thereby noted with satisfaction the effective way in which UNEF continued to carry out its function, and asked the Fifth Committee to recommend such action as might be necessary to finance the continuing operation of UNEF. (For details about the Fifth Committee's consideration of the matter, see below, COST ESTIMATES FOR MAINTENANCE OF UNEF.)
Before the Assembly decided on the resolution, the representatives of Mexico and Venezuela said they would abstain from voting because it did not provide for "action on a more equitable basis" for financing UNEF.
According to the Mexican representative, the fact that many Members had failed to contribute, despite voting for the resolution of 1957 appeared to indicate a widespread feeling that the Force should not be financed under the system of the regular budget of the Organization. At least the two following principles, he thought, should be considered: (1) a special quota should be fixed for the permanent members of the Security Council, as they had a special responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security; (2) a second special quota should be set, to be shared proportionately among those States which had considerable public or private investments in the Middle East. The balance of the expenses would be covered by all Members in accordance with the scale of assessments for the regular United Nations budget. The principle of collective responsibility for the maintenance of peace would thus be safeguarded through the payment of at least token sums by all Members, leaving States desiring to pay more than their share free to do so.
COST ESTIMATES FOR MAINTENANCE OF UNEF
In his budget estimates for 1958, the Secretary-General indicated that recurring expenses for UNEF in 1958 had decreased considerably, mainly because the heavy initial logistical requirements had been largely met; moreover, significant improvements in operation and administration had resulted in greater economy, and further savings would be made during 1959. While a maximum expenditure of $25 million had been authorized for 1958, the actual estimates for 1958 did not exceed $20 million. This amount included $14 million for normal recurring expenditures for the operation of the Force, and $6 million for reimbursements to the Governments providing military contingents.
In view of the possible magnitude of the eventual claims from Governments, the Secretary-General recommended that there be no change in the authorization given by the Assembly in November 1957 (by resolution 1151(XII))1/ for expenditures in 1958 up to a maximum of $25 million and no change in the level of assessments in connexion with the 1958 contributions by Members to the Special Account. The unexpended balance of the authorized maximum should be kept in reserve to meet future claims of participating Governments for reimbursement for loss and deterioration of their equipment.
The 1959 estimates submitted by the Secretary-General totalled $19,369,000-$12,869,000 for the operation of the Force and $6,500,000 for reimbursement to Governments. The 1959 budget was thus 22.5 per cent (i.e., $5,631,000) below the amount of $25 million assessed for 1958.
In its report on the estimates, the Assembly's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions recommended approval of the Secretary-General's estimates for 1958 and 1959, suggesting at the same time that every effort be made to operate within a target total of $13 million as compared with the proposed $14 million. It also concurred with the Secretary-General's recommendation that the $25 million authorization provided for 1958 be maintained for the purpose indicated.
When, on 2 December 1958, the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee began consideration of the cost estimates for UNEF, it had before it a draft resolution submitted by Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Yugoslavia.
By this, the Assembly would: (1) confirm its authorization to the Secretary-General to expend up to a maximum of $25 million for the operation of the Force during 1958; (2) authorize the Secretary-General to expend up to a maximum of $19,369,000 for the continuing operation of the Force during 1959; (3) approve the observations and recommendations of the Advisory Committee; and (4) decide that the expenses authorized for 1959 should be borne by the Members of the United Nations in accordance with the scale of assessments adopted by the General Assembly for the financial year 1959.
The method of financing the expenses of the Force was the main issue in the debate in the Fifth Committee. Three main positions were expressed:
(1) The expenses of the Force should be borne by all Member States on the basis of the regular scale of assessments. This view was held by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Japan and the United States, in addition to the sponsors of the draft resolution.
(2) The major portion of the expenses should be shouldered by the permanent members of the Security Council and by States with a special interest in the maintenance of peace in the Middle East, the balance of the burden being shared by all Members in proportion to their regular assessments. Argentina, Mexico, Spain and Venezuela upheld this view.
(3) The expenses should be borne by those States which had taken the initial action from which the need for the creation of the Force had resulted. Bulgaria and the USSR supported this position.
On 3 December 1958, the United States introduced two amendments to the six-power draft resolution. These were intended: (1) to reduce the 1959 appropriation from $19,369,000 to $19,000,000; and (2) to provide that the balance remaining after deduction of voluntary contributions pledged or paid would be borne by the Members according to the regular scale of assessments.
At the same meeting, Argentina proposed adding a new operative paragraph, whereby the Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to consult Member Governments on the method of financing the Force in the future, and to submit a report on the consultations to the Assembly at its fourteenth session.
In the hope that the Committee could reach general agreement, Denmark accepted these amendments on behalf of the sponsors. They were, however, voted on separately, on 3 December 1958.
The Committee voted as follows: The first United States amendment was adopted by a roll-call vote of 35 to 1, with 25 abstentions. The second United States amendment was adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 to 0, with 28 abstentions. The Argentine amendment was adopted by a roll-call vote of 43 to 9, with 17 abstentions. After a separate vote on the amended operative paragraph 4 (adopted by 34 votes to 12, with 22 abstentions), the amended draft resolution as a whole was adopted in the Committee by a roll-call vote of 38 to 9, with 22 abstentions.
On 13 December, the text was approved at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly by a roll-call vote of 42 to 9, with 27 abstentions, as resolution 1337 (XIII).
SUMMARY STUDY OF EXPERIENCE DERIVED FROM UNEF
In his summary study submitted to the General Assembly on the experience derived from the establishment and operation of UNEF, the Secretary-General dealt with political and constitutional questions relating to UNEF, its formation and composition, its operations, organization and administration in the field, financial arrangements and legal aspects.
In a final chapter on concluding observations and principles, certain observations were made on the special circumstances of UNEF, and certain basic principles were defined which might provide an adaptable framework for later operations of a similar nature. It was intended that these principles might also provide a continuing basis upon which useful contacts might be maintained with interested Governments concerning possible UNEF-type operations in the future.
On 5 November, the Secretary-General made a brief explanation to the Assembly's Special Political Committee of his reasons for presenting the study, which attempted to bring out those parts of the UNEF experience which might be of lasting significance. Another object of the report, he pointed out, was to give some guidance to public discussion as to the possibilities and limitations of action by the United Nations of the type envisaged in the report. The Secretary-General indicated to the Assembly that no formal action on the report was required.
In view of the Secretary-General's statement, the Special Political Committee took no further action.
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
GENERAL ASSEMBLY – 13TH SESSION
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Plenary meetings 749-751, 755, 756, 758-760, 762, 763, 765, 767, 769, 771, 774, 780.
PROGRESS REPORT ON UNEF
Plenary meeting 780.
Special Political Committee, meetings 96-99.
A/3899. UNEF. Report of Secretary-General.
A/SPC/L.26 and Rev.1. Brazil, Canada, Ceylon, Colombia, India, Norway, Pakistan, draft resolution and revision as orally amended by Mexico, adopted by Special Political Committee on 3 November 1958, meeting 99, by 49 votes to 9, with 13 abstentions.
A/3989. Report of Special Political Committee.
RESOLUTION 1263(XIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee A/3989, adopted by Assembly on 14 November 1958, meeting 780, by roll-call vote of 51 to 9, with 17 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Federation of Malaya, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Laos, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.
Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Chile, Honduras, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Republic, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen. (The delegation of Turkey, which was absent at the time of voting, subsequently informed the President that it would have cast its vote in favour of the draft resolution.)
"The General Assembly,
"Having considered the progress report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Emergency Force,
"Noting with satisfaction the effective way in which the Force continues to carry out its function,
"Requests the Fifth Committee to recommend such action as may be necessary to finance the continuing operation of the United Nations Emergency Force."
COST ESTIMATES FOR MAINTENANCE OF UNEF
Plenary meeting 790.
Fifth Committee, meetings 697-699, 705.
A/3823, A/3839. UNEF Budget estimates for period 1 January-31 December 1958. Report presented by Secretary-General and Report of Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.
A/3926, A/3976. Financial reports and accounts for period ended 31 December 1957 of United Nations and its Trust Funds and Special Accounts (Part IV: Special Account of UNEF) and reports of Board of Auditors thereon and report of Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.
A/C.5/759. Statement of advances to Working Capital Fund, contributions to budgets for financial years 1956, 1957 and 1958 and assessments to UNEF Special Account for 1957 and 1958 as at 31 October 1958. Report of Secretary-General.
A/3984, A/4002. UNEF. Cost estimates for maintenance of the Force. Budget estimates for period 1 January-31 December 1959. Report of Secretary- General and Advisory Committee on Administration and Budgetary Questions.
A/3943. UNEF. Summary study of experience derived from establishment and operation of the force. Report of Secretary-General. Chapter V: Financial arrangements.
A/C.5/L.545. Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Yugoslavia draft resolution, as amended by United States, A/C.5/L.548, and by Argentina, A/C.5/L.549, adopted by Fifth Committee on 3 December 1958, meeting 699, by roll-call vote of 38 to 9, With 22 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon, Colombia, Denmark, Federation of Malaya, Finland, France, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.
Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iraq, Jordan, Mexico, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, Venezuela, Yemen.
A/C.5/L.548. United States amendments to 6-power draft resolution, A/C.5/L.545.
A/C.5/L.549. Argentina amendment to 6-power draft resolution, A/C.5/L.545.
A/4072. Report of Fifth Committee.
RESOLUTION 1337(XIII), as recommended by Fifth Committee, A/4072, adopted by Assembly on 13 December 1958, meeting 790, by roll-call vote of 12 to 9 with 27 abstentions as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Federation of Malaya, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Laos, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.
Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Nepal, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, Venezuela, Yemen.
"The General Assembly,
"Recalling its resolutions 1151(XII) of 22 November 1957 and 1204(XII) of 13 December 1957 concerning the financing of the United Nations Emergency Force beyond 31 December 1957,
"Recalling also its resolution 1263(XIII) of 14 November 1958 requesting the Fifth Committee to recommend such action as may be necessary to finance the continuing operation of the Force,
"Having examined the budget estimates for the Force submitted by the Secretary-General for the year 1958 and for the year 1959,
"Having considered the observations and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions on the estimates for the Force for 1958 in its second report to the thirteenth session of the General Assembly, and on the estimates for 1959 in its twenty-fifth report to the thirteenth session of the General Assembly,
"1. Confirms its authorization to the Secretary-General to expend up to a maximum of $25 million for the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force during 1958;
"2. Authorizes the Secretary-General to expend up to a maximum of $19 million for the continuing operation of the Force during 1959;
"3. Approves the observations and recommendations contained in the second and twenty-fifth reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions to the thirteenth session of the General Assembly;
"4. Decides that the expenses authorized in paragraph 2 above, less any amounts pledged or contributed by Governments of Member States as special assistance prior to 31 December 1953, shall be borne by the Members of the United Nations in accordance with the scale of assessments adopted by the General Assembly for the financial year 1959;
"5. Requests the Secretary-General to consult with the Governments of Member States with respect to their views concerning the manner of financing the Force in the future, and to submit a report together with the replies to the General Assembly at its fourteenth session."
SUMMARY STUDY OF EXPERIENCE DERIVED FROM UNEF
Special Political Committee, meeting 100.
A/3943. UNEF. Summary study of experience derived from establishment and operation of the Force. Report of Secretary-General.
A/3989. Report of Special Political Committee, paragraph 12.
OTHER DOCUMENTS
ST/SGB/UNEF/1. UNEF Regulations.
ST/SGB/UNEF/2/Rev.1. Financial Rules for Special Account for UNEF.
DEVELOPMENTS ON BORDER BETWEEN ISRAEL AND NORTHERN REGION
OF UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
During the early part of 1953, various incidents in the border area between Israel and Syria (now part of the United Arab Republic)2/ resulted in various complaints of aggression being lodged with the Security Council by the two countries. Some of the most serious charges involved incidents in the Demilitarized Zone on the border between the two countries.
After incidents on 30 and 31 March, which claimed six Israel and nine Syrian lives, the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) announced on 8 April that both Governments had accepted his findings that there had been a minor encroachment and that Israel had subsequently announced its intention of taking corrective action.
Incidents in the border area continued to occur during the year, and were reported on by the Chief of Staff of UNTSO. No further communications, however, were sent to the Security Council by the two countries until 4 December 1958.
On that day, Israel asked for an urgent meeting of the Security Council "to consider a grave act of aggression committed on 3 December 1958 by the armed forces of the United Arab Republic against Israel territory in the Huleh area".
The Security Council considered the matter on 8 and 15 December, with Israel and the United Arab Republic participating. It had before it a report of 8 December of the Chief of Staff of UNTSO which dealt, in part, with the incident of 3 December. The incident had two distinct phases, he said – small arms firing during which an Israel shepherd was killed, and subsequent extensive artillery fire directed at military positions or villages.
According to the Chief of Staff, the incident had followed a series of Israel complaints alleging illegal grazing or, in one case, stealing of cattle. United Nations observers on the spot had witnessed crossings of the Demarcation Line by herds from the northern region of the United Arab Republic. The Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission, established to deal with such matters, had not held regular sessions since 1951, and it had held emergency sessions only in very exceptional circumstances. It was, therefore, impossible for the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission or the Chief of Staff to speak on behalf of the Mixed Armistice Commission in requesting implementation of the General Armistice Agreement. Each party, the report stated, attempted to use one or other of these officials as an intermediary in trying to stop the other party from practices which it considered "illegal", and sometimes as the bearer of a more or less disguised ultimatum. According to the report, this situation led to a state of mind contrary to the letter and spirit of the General Armistice Agreement.
The Israel representative, in addressing the Security Council, blamed the recurrence of the incidents complained of on the United Arab Republic. Israel had directed defensive fire exclusively against the posts from which the attack had been conducted, whereupon a heavy artillery barrage had rained down on seven Israel villages. For the third time during the year Israel villages had been shelled, and this time with all intensity not previously recorded. Israel's position was that its villages in the area must and would be "protected against such danger and assault".
The United Arab Republic representative maintained that Israel was using the Security Council for propaganda ends. Israel, he claimed, wanted to make the world forget the aggressions for which it had itself been condemned. It was Israel which was guilty of illicit activities, such as violation of Syrian air space, damage to Arab lands, and incursions into Syrian areas. One of the Israel villages allegedly bombarded was a fortification within the demilitarized central area, and as such was a daily violation of the Armistice Agreement. It was Israel, he continued, which had opened artillery fire on 3 December, after the exchange of small-arms fire. Furthermore, Israel had seized the Security Council of the incident before the Mixed Armistice Commission had been able to examine it.
When the Council resumed the consideration of the matter on 15 December, the Secretary-General reaffirmed the principle that no military action in contravention of the cease-fire clauses of the Armistice Agreements could he justified even by prior military action from the other side, except in cases of self-defence in the most accurate sense of the term. He expressed his deepest concern over the incident.
He stated further that a peaceful solution eliminating the cause of friction must be the object of serious efforts. Commendable efforts in this sense had already been made by the Chief of Staff. He was confident of the support of the Council, and hopeful that the parties would co-operate.
Saying that he would visit the two countries in the near future, the Secretary-General said that he would take up the situation now under consideration with the authorities concerned in the hope of breaking the present trend and enlisting their full support. Finally, the Secretary-General informed the Council that the Syrian and Israel authorities had agreed to inspections, already begun, of the north-eastern region by United Nations Military Observers.
During the ensuing debate, the Council heard statements by the representatives of Canada, Colombia, France, Iraq, Panama, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Summing up the debate, the President of the Council said he was certain the Council agreed that incidents such as the one discussed could be dealt with effectively by the Chief of Staff and UNTSO. The authority of the United Nations should be respected, and the parties should continue their co-operation with the Chief of Staff in the spirit of the Armistice Agreement. The President hoped that the incidents discussed by the Council would remain isolated.
THE PROBLEM OF MOUNT SCOPUS
On 16 December 1957, the Secretary-General appointed Francisco Urrutia of Colombia as his personal representative for negotiations with the Israel and Jordan Governments with a view to full implementation of the Agreement of 7 July 1948 for the Demilitarization of the Mount Scopus Area north-east of Jerusalem.
After visits to Jerusalem and Amman in January 1958, Mr. Urrutia reported to the Secretary-General, among other things, on arrangements for visits to Mount Scopus by specially designated representatives of the Secretary-General who would be authorized to use UNTSO military personnel for their assistance as necessary. Both Governments had informed the Secretary-General on 5 December 1957 that they were willing, on a basis of reciprocity, to give full implementation to this Agreement and on this basis accepted inspection of Mount Scopus by the United Nations which was necessary to fulfil United Nations responsibility for checking that the agreement was implemented and continued to be so. The agreement included provisions for a regular supply convoy for Israel personnel guarding Jewish-owned buildings in the demilitarized Mount Scopus area, an area surrounded by Jordan territory. In his report, Mr. Urrutia stated that both parties agreed that the United Nations would be responsible for ascertaining the need and ultimate use of items included in the convoy manifesto.
On 9 April 1958, the Secretary-General named Mr. Urrutia and Ralph J. Bunche as his specially designated representatives; in that capacity Mr. Urrutia visited the area early in April 1958.
On 10 June 1958 the Secretary-General also named Andrew W. Cordier as his specially designated representative. Mr. Cordier visited the area from 14 to 23 June 1958. This visit took place shortly after what was regarded as one of the most serious incidents on Mount Scopus.
On 26 May 1958, an Israel police patrol became involved in an exchange of fire, and Lieutenant-Colonel G. A. Flint, Chairman of the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission and the Chief of Staff's Representative for Mount Scopus attempted to arrange a ceasefire on the spot. While making his way towards the wounded members of the Israel patrol in an effort to rescue them, Colonel Flint was fatally shot. Four members of the Israel patrol also lost their lives.
In his report of 7 June 1958 on this incident, the Chief of Staff's provisional conclusion (subsequently confirmed on 28 July) was that Lieutenant-Colonel Flint was shot by a bullet fired from Jordanian controlled territory. At least one of the Israel policemen killed was shot by a bullet fired from another rifle of the same type.
According to the Chief of Staff, the incident of 26 May had been preceded by less grave incidents occurring from time to time in an atmosphere of tension. Contacts and conflicts between Israel police and the inhabitants of the Arab village of Issawiya on Mount Scopus had increased as a result of the expansion of the patrol activities of the Israel police. The difficulties on the slopes of Mount Scopus were connected with a long-standing controversy over whether the areas in question were within the Mount Scopus demilitarized area or in Jordan.
The Chief of Staff concluded that the Arab villages and the Israel police on Mount Scopus could live peacefully as long as practical measures were taken to keep them apart. Under such conditions, patrolling by Israel police would not be necessary for security reasons. Pending full implementation of the 7 July 1948 Agreement, the question of the disputed areas could, he considered, be left in abeyance.
On 28 July, in an addendum to his report, the Chief of Staff reported that the situation culminating in the incident of 26 May had become even more explosive after the Israelis, on 1 June, had closed the only reasonable road available to the villagers of Issawiya. During his visits to the area between 14 and 23 June, Mr. Cordier, together with the Chief of Staff, made a careful investigation of the road. In the Chief of Staff's opinion, it was difficult to see, as the Israel authorities alleged, that security and safety factors were considerations in the closing of the road. Such a policy, he stated, only added to what must seem to the villagers a pattern of inconvenience and suffering, and could in no sense be regarded as contributing to the tranquillity of the area. On the contrary, it added gravely to an already explosive situation and required immediate rectification.
In consultations with Israel authorities, Mr. Cordier asked for an immediate opening of the road to normal vehicular and pedestrian traffic in its own right and as a contribution to an improved atmosphere on Mount Scopus. Before his departure, he was informed that the road would be open during the daylight hours as from 23 June. Mr. Cordier maintained that there was no reason why the road should not be open twenty-four hours a day. The implied prohibition of night use carried with it possibilities of further incidents and aggravations.
The Chief of Staff reported the matter to the Secretary-General, who in turn brought it to the attention of the Government of Israel.
REPORT OF CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE
On 12 June 1958, the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine adopted its sixteenth progress report to the General Assembly, covering the period from 1 October 1956 to 31 May 1958. The report described progress made in identification of Arab refugee property holdings in Israel, which was nearly completed, and in the release of Arab refugee bank accounts blocked in Israel, as well as the transfer of safe deposit and safe custody items. The Commission also stated that it had decided that a programme of valuation of Arab refugee property holdings in Israel should be carried out as soon as possible.
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
DEVELOPMENTS ON BORDER BETWEEN ISRAEL AND NORTHERN REGION
OF UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
SECURITY COUNCIL, meetings 841, 844.
S/3945. Letter of 30 January 1958 from representative of Israel.
S/3946, S/3948, S/3950. Letters of 30 January, 4 and 11 February 1958 from representative of Syria.
S/3955. Letter of 14 February 1958 from representative of Israel.
S/3983. Letter of 30 March 1958 from representative of United Arab Republic.
S/3985, S/4123. Letters of 2 April and 4 December 1958 from representative of Israel.
S/4124. Report of Chief of Staff of UNTSO in Palestine on incident of 3 December between Israel and Syria in Huleh area.
THE PROBLEM OF MOUNT SCOPUS
S/4011. Letter of 29 May 1958 from representative of Israel.
S/4012. Letter of 29 May 1958 from Secretary-General.
S/4030 and Corr.1, S/4030/Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1. Note by Secretary-General, transmitting report of Chief of Staff of UNTSO, concerning firing incident of 26 May 1958 on Mount Scopus.
REPORT OF CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE
A/3835. United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. Sixteenth Progress Report.
ASSISTANCE TO PALESTINE REFUGEES
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF UNRWA
In the annual report to the General Assembly's thirteenth session (for the 12 months ending 30 June 1958) of the Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), it was stated that the Agency continued to carry out its work despite limited funds, the outbreak of yet another crisis in the Near East and the political aspects of the Palestine problem.
As to relief, in spite of serious interruptions of communications caused by the crisis, food and other supplies were moved and distributed on time and essential services maintained, thereby averting an additional cause of unrest in the area.
As to self-support and rehabilitation, the report stated, any significant efforts were hampered by lack of funds and the continued absence of a political solution of the Palestine problem, as well as by the persistent hostility of the refugees towards major development projects. There were, however, stronger signs among the refugees of a growing appreciation of the desirability of self-support and rehabilitation, in the broad sense of an improvement in their living conditions and prospects for the future.
Looking ahead, the report pointed out that UNRWA's mandate did not extend beyond June 1960. Even in the most favourable political circumstances it would be years before the refugees could become self-supporting, however great the investment in economic development in the Near East. There would, therefore, be a continuing need for refugee relief and other services, and the General Assembly was urged to decide, before its 1959 session, how those services should be provided.
FINANCIAL POSITION
The Agency's financial position was still basically unsatisfactory the report added, despite the estimated $3.5 million surplus of income over expenditure in 1958. This surplus resulted from: (1) the fact that the Agency was unable, as a result of unrest in the area, to complete the whole of its planned programmes for 1958; (2) increased income as a result of delayed payments of pledges of prior years; and (3) an unexpected drop in commodity prices. The two latter factors could not be counted on to recur in 1959.
After consultation with its Advisory Commission, UNRWA decided that the first $2 million of this $3.5 million surplus would be spent on restoring some of the services to what they were before the Agency was forced, in 1957, to make stringent economies. For example, some badly needed classrooms, clinics and feeding centres would be built. The balance of $1.5 million would be used for certain self-support activities which had been suspended, such as the individual grants programmes and the provision of increased facilities for teacher and vocational training. The report pointed out, however, that continued and increased financial support was as urgent as ever.
To meet the situation, the following steps were required:
(1) Immediate payment of all outstanding pledges.
(2) Immediate payment, by those of the Agency's regular contributors who had not done so, of contributions for 1958, or, where applicable, for the last half of 1958 in amounts pro rata to their normal contributions for a full year.
(3) Approval of UNRWA's budget for 1959.
(4) Pledging and payment of at least $36 million to enable UNRWA to implement its programmes in 1959.
(5) Payment of all contributions towards the 1959 budget in advance of expenditure – that is, one-half before 1 January 1959 and the remainder before 1 July 1959.
(6) Payment of $6.5 million to enable the Agency to establish a small reserve of working capital.
(7) Arrangements for a study, a report and recommendations for dealing with the situation after 30 June 1960.
ASSISTANCE RENDERED
As of 30 June 1958, 963,958 refugees were receiving the Agency's services, some 30,000 more than in the previous 12 months. Of these refugees, 225,575 were in the Gaza Strip, 539,519 in Jordan, 102,291 in Lebanon and 96,573 in the Syrian Region of the United Arab Republic.
Although the basic essentials of the relief programmes were maintained, the over-all standard of relief – as regards food, shelter and clothing – remained inadequate, the report stated.
Food. About 842,000 basic dry rations were distributed monthly, providing, per person, about 1,600 calories daily in winter and 1,500 a day in summer. An average of 26,000 pregnant and nursing mothers and 1,400 non-hospitalized tuberculosis patients received additional dry rations. An average of some 45,000 hot mid-day meals a day were provided, on doctor's orders, to refugees needing them. About 218,000 babies, children aged one to 15, pregnant and nursing mothers and sick persons received daily whole or skimmed milk rations. Over one million Vitamin A and D capsules were distributed monthly to school children and younger children attending supplementary feeding centres.
Shelter. Some 39.4 per cent of the total refugee population lived in the Agency's 57 camps – an increase during the year of about 20,000 or, in proportion, about one per cent. As a result of the Agency's shelter improvement programme, the number of tents in the camps dropped to less than 5,000.
Health. In general, the health of the refugees in all areas continued to be satisfactory. The Agency's health services, which included operation of 92 clinics and maintenance of about 2,000 hospital beds, remained substantially unchanged.
Self-support and Rehabilitation. As a result of the drastic financial cuts which became necessary in 1957, many of the Agency's self-support and rehabilitation measures have been curtailed, terminated or deferred. What remained of the programme consisted of a general calculation system (elementary and secondary schooling plus a minimum of higher education), two vocational training centres, a placement service, and the completion of a few minor self-support projects. By August 1958, it became apparent that the financial situation would allow UNRWA to step up or resume parts of its programme in a modest way, and to restore standards in the education system to the pre-1957 level.
Education. The Agency's education system remained one of its most important means of preparing the refugees to become self-supporting, wherever they might ultimately live. Its object was to provide elementary education for all refugee children; secondary education for a proportion of the refugee school population roughly equal to the proportion of the indigenous school population receiving it in the host countries; university scholarships; and as much vocational training as the Agency could afford for a small number of gifted students.
During the 1957-1958 school year, about 173,000 children benefitted from the Agency's elementary and secondary education programmes; nearly 118,000 of these attended the Agency's 381 schools, the balance of about 55,000 being enrolled in government or private schools where they were subsidized by UNRWA. UNRWA scholarships were held by 365 students. There were over 3,200 teachers in the Agency's schools.
Vocational Training. It proved impossible to build the additional vocational training centres for which plans had been prepared (two in Lebanon and one in Jordan). Accordingly, the Agency concentrated on improving the two centres already operating in Jordan and the Gaza Strip, and on establishing at Tripoli in Lebanon a training course for pipeline welders, for whom a keen demand existed in the Persian Gulf area.
CONSIDERATION BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The question of assistance to Palestine refugees was considered at the General Assembly's thirteenth session by the Special Political Committee.
In presenting the UNRWA report to the Assembly, the Acting Director stressed the Agency's unsatisfactory financial situation. Standards of relief were still low, the expenditure for basic services being about $34.50 per refugee per annum, or less than 10 cents a day. He drew attention to the views of UNRWA's Advisory Commission, which had endorsed the Agency's budget for 1959, and urged that special efforts to raise funds be continued. He also recommended higher relief standards and increased services, including aid to additional claimants for relief.
The Acting Director stated that the political aspects of reintegration of the refugees into the life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement, were not UNRWA's responsibility. Continued efforts had been made by UNRWA with regard to the economic aspects of reintegration. It was not true that the refugees refused all of the Agency's offers to help them become self-supporting, although the most promising developments in this field had been blocked by lack of funds.
The Acting Director pointed out that the Agency's mandate would expire on 30 June 1960 and that the needs of hundreds of thousands of refugees would continue beyond that date. In his view, there were three choices open to the Assembly: to extend the Agency's mandate; to make alternative arrangements to meet the needs of the refugees; or to arrange for a comprehensive study of the situation in order to take a decision at the next session.
During the debate in the Special Political Committee, the United States representative expressed the view that continuation of UNRWA beyond its present mandate was not the proper way to handle the refugee problem. UNRWA had some achievements in rehabilitation to its credit, but it was necessary to find a system that would greatly accelerate the rate at which refugees were made self-supporting. This would require careful study and advance planning.
The United States position was opposed by representatives of Arab States. Failing repatriation of the refugees – in their view, the only lasting solution of the problem – UNRWA must continue its work, they contended. Termination of UNRWA's mandate could lead to chaos in the Middle East. The United Nations must in no circumstances free itself of its responsibility for the refugees until a final solution was reached. Until the refugees were repatriated, the United Nations should receive from Israel the revenues derived from refugee property and make them available to the refugees.
Afghanistan, Greece, India, Ireland, Turkey and others thought that, pending a political solution, the United Nations would have to continue to help the refugees.
Australia, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and New Zealand, among others, stated that the importance and cost of UNRWA's work justified making a study of it before a final decision was taken. The United Kingdom representative considered that an eventual solution of the problem would probably be found in a combination of repatriation, compensation and resettlement. He too favoured a study of future arrangements for the refugees, to help the General Assembly in taking its decision in 1959.
The Romanian representative said he would support any measures aiming at the repatriation of the refugees to their homeland. The situation in the Middle East should be radically settled, he contended, by putting an end to imperialist and colonial intervention in the area.
The representative of Israel stated that repatriation of the refugees was unacceptable to his country, which could not entertain a proposal involving its own disruption and bringing only new disillusionment to the refugees. The basic solution of the refugee problem lay in the integration of the refugees into the countries in which they had dwelt for ten years and in which they lived among their kinsmen. On that understanding, and if the international assistance offered in 1955 were still available, Israel would be prepared to pay compensation even before the achievement of a final peace settlement.
On 24 November, the Committee heard a statement by Dr. Izzat Tannous, Director of the Palestine Arab Refugee Offices in New York and Beirut.
On 10 December a draft resolution, sponsored jointly by the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, was presented in the Special Political Committee by the United States. By this text, the General Assembly would, among other things, stress the precarious financial position of the Agency and the Governments to contribute, or increase their contributions to UNRWA and would request the Secretary-General to pursue urgently his special efforts to secure additional financial assistance. The draft resolution should also direct the Agency to continue its programme as funds allowed, and would ask the Director, without prejudice to the rights of the refugees to plan and carry out refugee support projects.
In addition, the Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to arrange for the submission, to the Assembly's fourteenth (1959) session, of proposals for the continuation of assistance to Arabs refugees. These proposals would take into consideration views expressed by Members of the Assembly, as well as the rights of all parties as recognized by past resolutions on the subject.
In response to a United States request for his views on proposals for continuing aid, the Secretary-General stated that in view of the situation facing the General Assembly the following year he would, as part of his regular duties, look into the technical operation of UNRWA in preparation of such proposals as he might consider helpful or necessary to put forward to the Assembly, in good time, for its consideration at its next session.
The United States representative then announced that, in view of the Secretary-General's statement, the co-sponsors of the draft resolution were willing to delete the provision on proposals for continuing aid, as a report of the type indicated by the Secretary-General would make this provision unnecessary.
The draft resolution, without this provision, was adopted by the Special Political Committee on 1 December by 44 votes to 0, with 18 abstentions.
The Special Political Committee's recommendation was given final approval at a plenary meeting of the Assembly on 12 December 1958, in the form of resolution 1315(XIII), which was adopted by 57 votes to 0, with 20 abstentions.
PLEDGES AND PAYMENTS FOR 1958-1959
Contributions totalling the equivalent of $32,680,053 were pledged by 35 governments for UNRWA's activities during its financial year ending 31 December 1958. By 31 December 1958, the equivalent of $32,451,347 had been received in payment of these pledges, in addition to payments on previous pledges amounting to $1,484,446. At the close of the year, pledges for 1958 amounting to $228,706 and for prior years amounting to $221,534 remained unpaid.
With regard to 1959, UNRWA had, as of 31 December 1958, received firm pledges of $15,927,537, and possible pledges totalling approximately $14,800.
PLEDGES AND CONTRIBUTION TO UNRWA
FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1958
(in U.S. Dollar Equivalents)
|
Pledging Government Australia Austria Belgium Canada Denmark France Gaza Authorities Germany, Fed. Rep. of Greece India Iran Italy Japan Jordan Lebanon Liberia Libya Luxembourg Monaco Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Saudi Arabia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Tunisia Turkey United Arab Republic United Kingdom United States Yugoslavia |
Pledge $ 195,200 1,400 20,000 2,075,000 72,400 252,305 22,986 190,476 39,000 15,756 2,667 39,953 10,000 108,262 7,788 5,000 14,000 2,000 2,381 4,762 32,895 140,000 49,000 20,964 212,420 23,810 4,200 96,873 70,093 2,000 5,045 305,348 5,600,000 22,996,069 40,000 _______________ $ 32,680,053 |
Contributions Received $ 195,200 1,400 20,000 2,075,000 50,680 252,305 22,986 190,476 — — 2,667 39,953 10,000 108,262 7,788 5,000 — 2,000 2,381 4,762 32,895 140,000 49,000 20,964 100,000 — 4,200 96,873 70,093 — 5,045 305,348 5,600,000 22,996,069 40,000 _____________ $ 32,451,347 |
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
GENERAL ASSEMBLY – 13TH SESSION
Plenary Meeting, 788.
Ad Hoc Committee of Whole Assembly, meeting 2.
Special Political Committee, meetings 101-113, 125.
A/3931. Annual Report of Director of UNRWA, 1 July 1957-30 June 1958.
A/3948. Letter of 8 October 1958 from Acting Director of UNRWA.
A/SPC/29. Statement by Acting Director of UNRWA before Special Political Committee on 7 November 1958, meeting 101.
A/SPC/31. Letter of 18 November 1958 from representative of Iraq.
A/SPC/L.31. Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States draft resolution, as amended by sponsors, adopted by Special Political Committee on 10 December 1958, meeting 125, by 44 votes to 0, with 18 abstentions.
A/4066. Report of Special Political Committee.
RESOLUTION 1315 (XIII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/4066, adopted by Assembly on 12 December 1958, meeting 788, by 57 votes to 0, with 20 abstentions.
"The General Assembly,
"Recalling its resolutions 194(III) of 11 December 1948, 302(IV) of 8 December 1949, 393(V) of 2 December 1950, 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 and 1191(XII) of 12 December 1957,
"Noting the annual report of the Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and in particular the observations relating to the expiration of the Agency's mandate on 30 June 1960, and noting the report of the Advisory Commission of the Agency,
"Noting with 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 Assembly resolution 513(VI) for the reintegration of refugees and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern,
"Having reviewed the budget prepared by the Director and having noted the endorsement thereof by the Advisory Commission of the Agency,
"Noting with grave concern that contributions to the budget are not yet sufficient and that the financial situation of the Agency remains serious,
"Recalling that the Agency is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations,
"1. Draws the attention of Governments to the precarious financial position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and urges them to consider to what extent they can contribute or increase their contributions in order that the Agency may carry out relief and rehabilitation programmes for the welfare of the refugees;
"2. Requests the Secretary-General, in view of the serious financial position of the Agency, to continue, as a matter of urgent concern, his special efforts to secure the additional financial assistance needed to meet the Agency's budget and to provide adequate working capital;
"3. Directs the Agency to pursue its programme for refugees bearing in mind the response to paragraphs 1 and 2 above;
"4. Requests the Director of the Agency, without prejudice to paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III), to plan and carry out projects capable of supporting substantial numbers of refugees and, in particular, programmes relating to education and vocational training;
"5. Requests the host Governments to co-operate fully with the Agency and with its personnel and to extend to the Agency every appropriate assistance in carrying out its functions;
"6. Requests the Agency to continue its consultations with the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine in the best interests of their respective tasks, with particular reference to paragraph 11 of resolution 194(III);
"7. Expresses its thanks to Mr. Henry R. Labouisse, Director of the Agency, for the devoted attention he has given to the affairs of the Agency and to the welfare of the refugees for the four years of his incumbency, to the staff of the Agency for their continued faithful efforts to carry out its mandate, and to the specialized agencies and the many private organizations for their valuable and continuing work in assisting the refugees;
"8. Requests the Director of the Agency to continue to submit the reports referred to in paragraph 21 of General Assembly resolution 302(IV), as modified by paragraph 11 of Assembly resolution 1018(XI)."
THE SUEZ CANAL
SURCHARGE COLLECTION PLAN
During 1958, the Secretary-General took steps to put into effect a plan for reimbursing countries which had made advances to meet the costs of clearing the Suez Canal. Under this plan, which was authorized by the General Assembly on 14 December 1957, a surcharge of 3 per cent on Canal traffic tolls was to be paid into a special United Nations account by all shipping and trade using the Canal. It was hoped that clearance costs would thus be recovered in about three years. The amount to be recovered, subject to adjustment, was approximately $8,200,000. The surcharge collection plan went into operation on 15 September 1958.
The Banque de la Société Générale de Belgique, Brussels, was appointed as United Nations agent for the receipt and collection of the surcharge, with other banks designated as sub-agents.
Arrangements were made for the United Nations Suez Canal Clearance Accounts maintained by these banks to be audited by the Chairman of the United Nations Board of Auditors on behalf of the Board.
Of the Governments which had made advances to meet the costs of the clearance operations, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United States have agreed to accept responsibility for payment of the surcharge on behalf of their shipping interests and trade. Japan has entered into a similar agreement. Denmark was considering similar arrangements. No Government indicated any formal objections.
AGREEMENT ON COMPENSATION OF SUEZ STOCKHOLDERS
In its Declaration on the Suez Canal of 24 April 1957, the Government of Egypt stated, among other things, that the question of compensation and claims in connexion with the nationalization of the Suez Canal Maritime Company would, unless otherwise agreed between the parties concerned, be referred to arbitration in accordance with established international practice.
On 29 April 1958, Heads of Agreement (that is, preliminary accords) on this question were negotiated in Rome between the United Arab Republic (successor to the Government of Egypt) and the Suez Stockholders, under the good offices of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Bank was asked to continue its good offices until conclusion of a final agreement and was designated as the fiscal agent of the parties to receive and pay out whatever amounts were agreed upon.
A final agreement on the question was signed in Geneva on 13 July 1958 by which the United Arab Republic, as successor to the Government of Egypt, undertook to leave to the Compagnie Financière de Suez (C.F.S.) all of its assets and liabilities outside Egypt. (The C.F.S. is the successor to the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez [the Suez Canal Maritime Company]). The United Arab Republic also agreed to pay, in full and final settlement of the compensation due to shareholders, the sum of 28.3 million Egyptian pounds. The C.F.S. assumed all liabilities outside Egypt which remained unpaid at the date of the Agreement, while all outstanding liabilities in Egypt remained for the account of the Government of the United Arab Republic.
Under the agreement, the International Bank was not only to act as fiscal agent but was also to lend its good offices in case of differences between the parties.
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
A/3827 (S/4014). Heads of Agreement in connexion with compensation of Suez Stockholders. Letter of 20 May 1958 from Minister of Foreign Affairs of United Arab Republic, communicating text of Heads of Agreement in connexion with compensation of Suez Stockholders.
A/3862. Reimbursement of cost of clearing, Suez Canal. Report by Secretary-General.
A/3898 (S/4089). Agreement between Government of United Arab Republic and Compagnie Financière de Suez, signed at Geneva on 13 July 1958. Letter of 10 August 1958, from Minister of Foreign Affairs of United Arab Republic.
COMMUNICATION FROM UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
On 25 July 1958, the representative of the United Arab Republic brought to the attention of the Security Council a complaint that United States aircraft had, on seven recent occasions, intercepted and tried to attack the civilian and commercial aircraft of the United Arab Republic during their normal flights between the Egyptian and Syrian regions of the country, and had committed violations of air space in the Syrian region. The Government of the United Arab Republic reserved its rights in taking any action which it might deem necessary, but did not press the matter further.
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCE
S/4065. Letter of 25 July 1958 from representative of United Arab Republic.
COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING ADEN AND YEMEN
In the course of 1958, a number of communications were addressed to the United Nations by the United Kingdom and Yemen, containing charges and counter-charges about armed attacks by ground and air forces on the territory of the Aden Protectorate and of Yemen. Letters from the United Kingdom denying allegations made by Yemen and charging Yemen with responsibility for actions against the Aden Protectorate were sent on 6 March, 17 April, 7 May, 9 July, 10 September and 7 October 1958. Charges and denials made by Yemen were contained in letters dated 27 February, 2 May and 18 July 1958.
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
S/3969. Letters of 27 February 1958 from representative of Yemen to President of Security Council and Secretary-General.
S/3977. Letter of 6 March 1958 from permanent representative of United Kingdom.
S/3989. Letter of 17 April 1958 from representative of United Kingdom.
S/4001. Letter of 2 May 1958 from representative of Yemen.
S/4004, S/4044, Letters of 7 May and 9 July 1958 from permanent representative of United Kingdom.
S/4058/Rev.1. Letter of 18 July 1958 from permanent representative of Yemen.
S/4096 and Corr.1, S/4103. Letters of 10 September and 7 October 1958 from permanent representative of United Kingdom.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM SAUDI ARABIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
In a letter to the President of the Security Council dated 27 November 1958, Saudi Arabia alleged that its territorial integrity had been violated by an armed aggression planned, organized and effected by the United Kingdom. The information was submitted, said the letter, for consideration by the members of the Security Council.
The letter charged that early in November the area of Khor al-Udaid, a Saudi Arabian territory lying south of the Persian Gulf, had been occupied by United Kingdom colonial forces led by British military officers and operating from the Sheikhdom of Abu Dhabi. Saudi Arabia, despite its policy of seeking peaceful solutions to any international dispute, would not hesitate to take all necessary measures provided for in the United Nations Charter to protect and preserve its territorial integrity vis-à-vis British colonialism in that area. It had already demanded the withdrawal of the United Kingdom's armed colonial forces.
On 10 December, the United Kingdom replied to these charges, maintaining that the Khor al-Udaid area was a part of the territories of the Sheikhdom of Abu Dhabi, a State under the protection of the United Kingdom Government. The Ruler of Abu Dhabi had re-established a police post at Khor al-Udaid the previous October, but there were no British officers or British personnel in the Abu Dhabi police. Information on these facts had already been supplied to the Saudi Arabian Government.
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
S/4119 Letter of 27 November 1958 from permanent representative of Saudi Arabia.
S/4134 Letter of 10 December 1958 from permanent representative of United Kingdom.
APPENDIX II
SUBSIDIARY AND AD HOC BODIES
…
The following subsidiary and ad hoc bodies were either in existence or functioning in 1958 to function in 1959. Those marked were created or began to function in 1958 and those marked * discontinued their activities during this period.
Interim Committee of the General Assembly
Disarmament Commission
Sub-Committee on Disarmament
United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF)
Advisory Committee on the United Nations Emergency Force
United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East (UNRWA)
…
UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE (UNEF)
Commander of UNEF: Lieutenant-General E. L. M. Burns.
During 1958 the Force was composed of units voluntarily contributed by the following United Nations Member States: Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, India, Norway, Sweden, Yugoslavia.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE
Members: Brazil, Canada, Ceylon, Colombia, India, Norway, Pakistan, serving under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General.
UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE
Members and Representatives:
France: Louis Dauge
Turkey: Turgut Menemencioglu.
United States: James W. Barco. (Acting Representative during 1958: Richard F. Pedersen).
UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES
IN THE NEAR EAST (UNRWA)
Director (until 15 June 1958): Henry R. Labouisse.
Acting Director (15 June 1958-4 March 1959): Leslie J. Carver.
Director (as of 15 February 1959): John H. Davis.
UNRWA ADVISORY COMMISSION
Members and Representatives
Belgium: Jean Querton.
France: L. Pannier.
Jordan: Is-haq Nashashibi.
Lebanon: Georges Bey Haimari.
Turkey: Refet Bele.
United Arab Republic: Salah Gohar.
United Kingdom: Sir George Middleton.
United States: Harry N. Howard.
…
UNITED NATIONS TRUCE SUPERVISION ORGANIZATION
IN PALESTINE (UNTSO)
Chief of Staff: Major-General Carl Carlsson von Horn.
On 3 March 1958, Major-General von Horn was appointed Chief of Staff, taking over from Col. Byron V. Leary, who had served as Acting Chief of Staff since the appointment of Lieutenant-General E. L. M. Burns as Commander of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in November 1956.
…
MATTERS CONSIDERED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL IN 1958
Subject Meetings and Dates
The Palestine Question: 809 (22 Jan.);
810 (22 Jan.).
(a) Letter dated 4 September 1957 from the
permanent representative of Jordan
addressed to the President of the
Security Council;
(b) Letter dated 5 September 1957 from the
acting permanent representative of Israel
addressed to the President of the Security
Council.
The Palestine Question: 841 (8 Dec.);
844 (15 Dec.).
Letter dated 4 December 1958 from the
permanent representative of Israel to the
United Nations addressed to the President
of the Security Council (S/4123).
END NOTES
1/See Y.U.N., 1957, p. 52.
2/On 21 February 1958, a plebiscite was held in Egypt and Syria, as a result of which the two countries joined to form the United Arab Republic.
Document symbol: 59.I.1
Document Type: Yearbook
Document Sources: General Assembly 3rd Emergency Special Session, United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI)
Subject: History, Jerusalem, Palestine question
Publication Date: 31/12/1958
Document Type: Yearbook
Document Sources: General Assembly 3rd Emergency Special Session, United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI)
Subject: History, Jerusalem, Palestine question
Publication Date: 31/12/1958