Negotiations with Arab & Israeli Delegations (Lausanne talks)- UNCCP 45th Meeting – Summary record

UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FORTY-FIFTH MEETING

Held in Lausanne on  Tuesday, 26 April 1949, at 11 a.m.

Negotiations with Arab and Israeli Delegations

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that Mr. Sasson of the Israeli delegation was in Brussels and expected to arrive in Lausanne that evening. The Egyptian and Lebanese delegations were already in Lausanne; the Syrian delegation was expected to arrive during the day. No further information had been received concerning the Hashemite Jordan delegation.

The Principal Secretary then circulated copies of a telegram just received from Mr. Cordier at Lake Success regarding the question of Israel’s admission to membership of the United Nations. He had also had a telephone conversation with Mr. Cordier, who had stated that the decision to refer the question to the First Committee had been made on substantive, not procedural, grounds, and had been based upon the attitude of certain delegations concerning the three points mentioned in Mr. Cordier’s telegram, i.e. the assassination of Count Bernadotte, the question of refugees and the question of Jerusalem. It was Mr. Cordier’s impression that two tendencies had manifested themselves in approximately equal measure: the one, to expedite settlement of the question during the present session; the other, to delay settlement and if possible to postpone it until the September session in order to obtain commitments from Israel on the three points mentioned. In any case the subject was unlikely to come up in the First Committee before the end of ten days. The Principal Secretary had arranged to receive daily reports from Lake Success on current developments.

Regarding the possibility of a. full debate on the matter in the First Committee, Mr. Cordier had said that such a debate, on the three points he had mentioned was definitely anticipated

Mr. de BOISANGER expressed the view that the Commission should hold itself entirely separate from the debate, since the question of Israel’s admission was outside its competence; he hoped the Commission would not be asked to give an opinion, as it would then by placed in an embarrassing position. He supported a suggestion made by Mr. Yalcin, that the Commission should advise the Secretary-General unofficially that it would prefer not to be asked for such an opinion.

The CHAIRNAN recalled that during the Beirut meetings he had foreseen the possibility of an opinion being requested from the Commission in the course of debate on this question. It was possible that the Israeli delegation at the Assembly might decline to discuss two of the three points at issue, on the grounds that they were at present being dealt with by the Conciliation Commission. In any case he thought that the Commission would be able to discuss the tatter fully with Mr. Sasson the following day.

Mr. YALCIN pointed out that if the Commission were asked by the Assembly to say whether or not the Government of Israel had observed the decisions of the Assembly, the Commission would of course be obliged to state that it had not.

The Commission accepted the Chairman’s suggestion that no cable on the subject should be sent to the Secretary-General until after the next day’s meeting with the Israeli delegation.

Technical Mission on Refugees.

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that contact had now been established with the three Governments represented on the Commission; although there were no definite indications as yet regarding possible candidates for the three technical posts, he hoped to have list of names within two or three days.

The Principal Secretary asked for clarification regarding the post of director of the technical mission; he was not sure whether the Commission desired a fourth member as director, or whether one of the three technicians, presumably the United States member, would act as director.

The CHAIRMAN recalled the suggestion made by the other two members of the Commission that the director of the mission should be of United States nationality. He himself maintained, however, that the question of nationality was unimportant; the essential point was that the three technicians should be recruited and should start work at the earliest possible moment. He suggested that after the Commission had made its selection From a list of names, it could. take a decision regarding the director.