Future government of Palestine/UN Palestine Commission – Commission accommodations, Communications with UK on outstanding matters, draft report to GA, Prov. Gov’t for the Jewish State – UNPC 64th mtg. – Summary record

---

UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTY-FOURTH MEETING

 Lake Success, New York

Friday, 9 April 1948, at 12.00 noon

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE COMMISSION

The SECRETARY read, for the information of the Commission, two cablegrams which had been received from Mr. Azcarate (Deputy Principal Secretary).

The first of these concerned the question of accommodation for the Commission in Palestine, stating that Mr. Azcarate’s investigation of the question led him to the conclusion that only the King David Hotel would be suitable for both lodgings and offices, but that the hotel might not be available before 15 May.

The cable also contained information concerning the Commission’s statement circularized in Palestine regarding re-employment of civil servants. It stated that to date affirmative replies had been received from 560 Jews, 3 British, and 4 others. No affirmative reply had been received from any Arab.

The second cable concerned the question of hospitals. It stated that representatives of the Red Cross were anxious to know whether the United Nations would agree to proceed with the making of financial arrangements respecting the maintenance of hospitals after 15 May.

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT OUTSTANDING MATTERS WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT (Informal Paper UK/95)

The SECRETARY informed the Commission that he had received a telephone call from Mr. Fletcher-Cooke (United Kingdom) who advised him that he had received from London a list of the outstanding matters which the United Kingdom Government were desirous of taking up with the Commission. The Secretary had asked Mr. Fletcher-Cooke to forward the list to the Commission, stating that the Commission would examine the list and would determine whether it would take action on the matters in question or whether it would refer them to the General Assembly for its consideration. He added that he had taken the opportunity to inform Mr. Fletcher-Cooke also that a letter regarding the outstanding matters which the Commission would wish to take up with the United Kingdom Government was being sent.

Consideration was then given to the draft letter to Mr. Fletcher-Cooke (Informal Paper UK/95) concerning urgent outstanding matters with the Mandatory Power (Informal Paper UK/95). The letter was approved.

At this point, the Commission took a recess of forty-five minutes for lunch, and resumed its meeting at 2.45 p.m.

CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF FIRST DRAFT OF THE REPORT TO THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (Informal Papers R/11 and R/11/Add.1)

Chapter III: The Work of the Commission: Consultations, Administrative and Security Problems

It was agreed to change the title of this chapter to “The Work of the Commission – Part One: Security and Administrative Problems”. It was further agreed that the section dealing with the Security Problem be considered and placed in the report before the section on Administrative problems.

Section 1 Procedure

After it had been stated that the Commission did not dispute the right of the Mandatory Power to retain undivided authority in Palestine until the termination of the Mandate, it was agreed to substitute the phrase “even for any preparatory work” for the phrase “for any purpose”.

Section 2: Advance Party

It was suggested that the Commission should make clear to the General Assembly what was meant by the phrase “de facto partition” in the last sentence in order to avoid the possibility of the Assembly’s coming to the conclusion that all it would have to do would be to endorse such a situation. It was stated that the phrase “de facto partition” as used in the draft had no connection with the partition plan set forth in the resolution of the General Assembly. It was proposed that an elaboration of this point be made in order to clarify its meaning. Another amendment along these lines was put forward but it was suggested that it should be included in the introduction to the report.

The SECRETARY then submitted an amended text of the last sentence along the proposed lines. The proposed amendment was as follows: “The reports have stressed that in fact, though on a de facto basis and without reference to the Plan of Partition, partition has already advanced very far in Palestine, as a result of the decentralization of authority and the division of the population into two distinct communities”. This amendment was approved, and the section, as thus amended and with a few other drafting changes, was accepted.

Section 3: The Security Problem

The first two paragraphs were approved unchanged. As regards paragraphs three, four, and five, it was agreed, firstly, not to reproduce the Special Security Report as an Annex to the present report; secondly, to quote and reaffirm the conclusions of the Commission’s Special Security Report; and, thirdly, to bring up to date the casualty list given in the above-mentioned report and to insert it as a footnote.

The remaining five paragraphs wore approved with minor drafting changes. The SECRETARY, however, was authorized to re-write the second sentence of the last paragraph taking into consideration the view of the Commission that the report should make clear that the arrangements for the preservation of security in Jerusalem provided for in the Assembly resolution would be insufficient under the present circumstances.

CONSIDERATION OF IMMEDIATE DISCUSSION ON THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF THE REPORT

At this point it was suggested that the Commission consider the section dealing with administrative problems and the chapter on economic, financial, and fiscal problems, as read and approved, and proceed immediately with the consideration of the political aspects of the report as expressed in the Conclusions and in the draft report submitted by Mr. Medina (Bolivia). In support of this suggestion, it was maintained that the above-mentioned problems were factual and not controversial and that the draft prepared by the Secretariat could be accepted without detailed consideration by the Commission.

In answer to this suggestion, it was pointed out that if the Commission were to postpone consideration of the technical questions listed in the report and discuss only controversial matters upon which it would be difficult to reach unanimous agreement the Secretariat would be unable to complete and reproduce the report in the short time remaining.

The SECRETARY inquired whether the Commission intended to give the report a second reading. It was agreed that the present reading would be considered as final and that the Secretariat would make such drafting changes as would be necessary after the report, as a whole, had been approved by the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN expressed the opinion that the Commission could not approve forty pages of the report without at least having read them. If for no other reasons, the Commission would have to consider the administrative and economic sections of the report in order to shorten and balance them with the other sections. There was no reason to consider the political part of the report more important than the economic or administrative sections.

The CHAIRMAN put the matter to the Commission which decided to continue consideration of the report in its logical sequence.

CONSIDERATION OF THE FUTURE WORK OF THE COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE PROPOSED JEWISH STATE

Before the Commission began its consideration of Sub-Section (a), of Section 4 of Chapter III, dealing with the Provisional Councils of Government (document R/11/Add.1), the CHAIRMAN informed the Commission that he wished to make a statement concerning the urgent matter of the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State. He pointed out to the Commission that this matter was still outstanding and that the Commission had agreed on the procedure to be followed (document A/AC.21/SR.59). He stated that, in his opinion, the work of the Commission on this matter should not be discontinued or longer delayed but that it should be promptly taken to its logical conclusion. He suggested that the Commission should now discuss the memorandum on the Provisional Council prepared by the Secretariat (document A/AC.21/SR.59), which had been based on the suggestions of Mr. Morgan (Panama) and then proceed to the conclusion of the report under consideration.

The SECRETARY expressed the opinion that the Commission should consider the question of priority of matters to be brought to its consideration. He asked the Commission when it wished to have the projected special report to the Security Council, concerning the food situation in Palestine, placed on its agenda. He further informed the Commission that the Secretariat would have the draft of the report ready by Monday and that the report should be in the hands of the Security Council before Friday, that is, before the General Assembly began its work. He reminded the Commission that he had been asked to communicate with Mr. Azcarate (Deputy Principal Secretary) concerning the consultations with the Ihud Association, and then read to the Commission the answer which he had received from Mr. Azcarate on the subject, in which Mr. Azcarate had expressed some doubt as to the advisability of proceeding with the consultations at this time Although he had directed Mr. Azcarate to use his discretion in regard to the negotiations with the Ihud Association, he pointed out that the Commission would have to decide what further instructions were to be transmitted to Mr. Azcarate.

With regard to the question of the postponement of the hearing of the representatives of Agudath Israel, it was decided that the Secretary inform them to keep themselves in readiness to appear before the Commission during the following week.

The SECRETARY informed the Commission that on the preceding day he had asked the Secretary-General for his views with regard to proceeding with the matter of the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State. The Secretary-General had expressed the opinion that it might be advisable to await the final outcome of the truce negotiations, which would involve a delay of only a day or two.

The opinion was expressed that the steps to be taken by the Commission in this matter could not in any way prejudice the decision which the General Assembly might take on the future government of Palestine, and that, in any case, the failure of the truce negotiations was a foregone conclusion.

The SECRETARY pointed out to the Commission that steps would have to be taken to settle the outstanding matters and that it was a question of deciding which of these would have priority of consideration.

The CHAIRMAN noted that it was possible to take up both matters simultaneously and proposed that the Commission decide immediately when it should hear the representatives of Agudath Israel.

The SECRETARY reminded the Commission that the consideration of Mr. Morgan’s memorandum concerning the composition of the Provisional Council of Government for the proposed Jewish State had been postponed pending the submission of similar memoranda by the other members of the Commission. This, he pointed out, had not as yet been done.

The CHAIRMAN observed that the members who had not already submitted their memoranda could express their opinion on this matter in the form of amendments to Mr. Morgan’s memorandum when it came up for consideration. He summarized the problem before the Commission as follows. There were two courses of action open to the Commission, either to take the matters up simultaneously or to give priority to the Commission’s special report to the Security Council concerning the food situation in Palestine.

The opinion was expressed that the two resolutions adopted by the Security Council had altered the Commission’s position in respect to the selection and establishment of the Provisional Council of Government. The Commission should not proceed along these lines before it was sure of the legality of its action. In support of this argument, it was pointed out that the problem of the future government of Palestine had now been placed in the hands of the General Assembly. Since, according to Article 12 of the Charter, the General Assembly could be prevented from discussion; any subject en the Security Council’s agenda, this rule would apply equally to a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, such as the Palestine Commission. The question arose as to whether or not the matter of the Provisional Council of Government was in the hands of the Security Council, and the Legal Adviser of the Palestine Commission Secretariat was requested to submit a paper clarifying the legal position.

The CHAIRMAN remarked that it was the practice of the Commission to base its work on the working papers of the Secretariat, as in the case of the question raised by Mr. Morgan concerning the share of Jerusalem in the public debt. Therefore, since the Commission was unable to decide on the substance of the matter pending the preparation of the requested legal paper, it should decide on principle whether to undertake the matters simultaneously or to give priority to the question of food.

Although it was conceded that food was more important, it was pointed out that the report to the Security Council did not mean the solution of the problem. There would be further discussion with little or no results. It was submitted that since the Secretariat had prepared a draft report for the Security Council, this matter could be disposed of rapidly and then the Commission could proceed with its task concerning the Provisional Council of Government for the proposed Jewish State. This, it was maintained, was of the utmost importance in order to save the Commission from grave responsibility in case the General Assembly should decide to stand by its previous resolution. In such a case, if the Commission had done nothing, it would find itself in a very difficult position “then called upon to answer for its actions by the General Assembly, whereas the decisions of the Security Council had until now proved meaningless.

It was remarked, in answer to this statement, that the granting of priority to the report did not in any way imply a negative decision concerning the Provisional Council of Government for the proposed Jewish State.

It was suggested that the Commission meet on Monday at noon to adopt a draft of the special report to the Security Council and then pass immediately to the consideration of the Provisional Council of Government for the proposed Jewish State.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that before any final decision could be taken concerning the Provisional Council of Government, the Commission would have to complete its consultations with the two remaining organizations, namely Agudath Israel and the Ihud Association.

In answer to the statement that since the Commission had asked the Secretariat for a legal opinion on the matter, it should not proceed further before having received this opinion, the CHAIRMAN stated that the Commission should continue its preparatory work while waiting for the legal opinion.

The objection to the hearings of the above-mentioned organizations by the Commission was withdrawn on the understanding that no steps be undertaken for the selection and establishment of the Provisional Council of Government in the proposed Jewish State before a favourable legal opinion had been received. The Commission accepted this view and agreed, on the one hand, to instruct Mr. Azcarate (Deputy Principal Secretary) to consult with the Ihud Association, and, on the other, to hear the representatives of Agudath Israel on Tuesday of the following week.

The Commission decided to hold its next meeting on Tuesday, 13 April.

The SECRETARY appealed to the Commission to make every effort to meet its deadline for the submission of its report to the General Assembly.

The CHAIRMAN promised that every effort would be made and the Commission resumed its consideration of the first draft of the report.

CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT REPORT TO THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (Informal Papers R/11 and R/11/Add.1)

Section 4: Administrative Problems

Sub-Section (a): Provisional Council of Government

Paragraph (i) was approved with a few drafting changes. It was agreed to delete paragraph (ii). As regards paragraph (iii) it was agreed to incorporate the second sentence in paragraph (i) and to delete the first sentence.

Paragraph (iv), now re-numbered paragraph (ii) was approved unchanged, with the exception of the phrase “on the understanding…termination of the Mandate,” at the end of the paragraph, which was deleted.

With regard to paragraph (v), it was suggested that the last sentence, reading “In pursuance of…Jewish State”, be deleted on the ground that the Commission should not state its position on the matter of the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State before it had received a legal opinion on the matter. The CHAIRMAN stated that since it was a question of preparatory work, this could not be considered as being against the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the action of the Commission in this respect could not be considered illegal as it simply constituted the implementation of the General Assembly resolution; which was still in force. It was stated that only the General Assembly could invalidate such action on the part of the Commission. The SECRETARY pointed out that the tense used in the draft would project the action of the Commission into the future and even after the General Assembly had taken up the matter. He therefore proposed to alter it to “has continued”. The sentence was amended to read as follows; “In pursuance of its decision, the Commission has continued preparatory work in this matter”. The paragraph, thus amended, was approved.

Sub-Section (b): Armed Militias.

The first three paragraphs were approved with minor drafting changes. It was agreed to delete paragraph (iv), but Mr. Morgan (Panama) registered a dissenting opinion with regard to its deletion.

At this point, the Commission took a recess of thirty minutes, and resumed its meeting at 5.45 p.m.

Sub-Section (c): The Palestine Police Force

The title of sub-section (c) was changed into “Palestine Forces”.

Paragraph (i) was approved after the first three sentences of the quotation from the Mandatory Power’s statement of 30 January 1948 included in the paragraph had been deleted.

Paragraph (ii) was approved after the third sentence had been re-written as follows: “In view of the inability of the Commission to proceed to Palestine prior to 1 May 1948, and owing to the impossibility of making effective arrangements for safeguarding the arms, stores, and equipment of the Police Farce, the Commission has been unable to conclude any arrangements for taking over the assets of the Palestine Police Force”.

Paragraph (iii) was approved after the word “areas” in the first sentence had been altered to “localities”.

Paragraph (iv) was approved after it was agreed to add the following at the end of the paragraph: “Although the Mandatory Power has suggested that the Commission on its arrival in Palestine, might consider using as its headquarters the former Royal Air Force Station at Aqir (near Rehovoth in the Jewish State but close to Ramleh in the Arab State), the Commission was subsequently advised that it would need to provide its own guards and, in the opinion of the General Officer Commanding, that not less than a battalion would be required to afford adequate protection”.

Paragraphs (v) and (vi) were merged into one paragraph after the last two sentences of paragraph (v) had been deleted. The new paragraph (v) was approved after minor drafting changes.

Sub-Section (d): Administrative Personnel of the Palestine Government

Paragraph (i) was approved and unchanged.

In paragraph (ii), the first, fifth, seventh, and eighth sentences of the quotation from the United Kingdom Government’s communication included in the first sub-paragraph were deleted a sentence from paragraph (vii) concerning the readiness of Jewish Government officials to co-operate with the Commission was transferred from that paragraph to the end of sub-paragraph two; the whole of sub-paragraph three was deleted.

In paragraph (iii), the statement of the Commission’s policy of 6 February 1948 concerning the continuance in service of Palestinian officials was deleted, and in its place the following quotation from the Commission’s statement of policy of 26 February 1943, without mention of the date, was inserted: “The United Nations Palestine Commission…hereby calls upon all present employees of the Palestine Administration to continue their service with the successor authority in Palestine when the British Mandate is terminated. It is the policy of the United Nations Palestine Commission as the successor authority to maintain services on the some terms and with the same rights for employees as those enjoyed under the Mandatory Government. The Commission requests all present employees of the Palestine Administration to inform at the earliest possible date the Mandatory Government, for communication to the Commission, whether they would be willing to remain in the service of the successor administration of Palestine on such terms.” It was further agreed that the latest information received from the Advance Party on the matter of the employees of the Palestine Administration would be inserted at the end of the paragraph. The following three sentences were added: “The Advance Party of the Secretariat of the Commission is engaged in further negotiations on the continuation in service of the employees of the Palestine Administration. As of 8 April, willingness to continue in service after the termination of the Mandate had been expressed by 560 Jews, 3 British, and 4 others. No Arabs had volunteered”.

Paragraph (iv) was approved after the first sentence had been transferred to the end of the paragraph, and the previous last sentence had been deleted.

Paragraph (v) was deleted.

Paragraph (vi) was approved with minor drafting changes.

Paragraph (vii) was deleted.

Sub-Section (a) Postal Administration

Paragraph (i) was approved with minor drafting changes.

Paragraph (ii) was re-written as follows: “The Commission, having communicated with the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union, was advised that in the transitional period prior to the formation of the independent States, the Commission or any agent it may appoint might enter into relations with the Universal Postal Union. Accordingly, the Commission has instructed the Advance Party to explore the possibility of emergency arrangements with a view to operating the postal services after 15 May”.

Sub-Section (f): Medical Services.

It was agreed to merge paragraphs (i) and (ii) into one paragraph, after the second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh sentences of paragraph (i) had been deleted.

It was further agreed to merge paragraphs (iii) and (v) into one paragraph which was re-written as follows: “The Commission has also approved the proposal of the Mandatory Power that some hospitals be transferred to the International Red Cross and the remainder to the respective communities. The Mandatory Power has been advised that the cost of maintaining the hospitals transferred to the International Red Cross, in the amount of LP.8,000 per month should be made available to the International Red Cross and charged against the surplus of the Palestine Treasury as an item of top priority”.

Paragraph (iv) was approved with minor drafting changes and placed as the last paragraph of this sub-section.

Sub-Section (g): Public Information Services

It was agreed to change the title of this sub-section to “Public Information Services and Facilities”.

Paragraph (i) was approved with minor drafting changes. The remaining six paragraphs were deleted.

Sub-Section (h): Immigration

It was agreed to delete this sub-section.

Sub-Section (i) Prisoners and Detainees

It was agreed to change the title of this sub-section to “Prisoners and Detainees, and Internees in Cyprus”.

In paragraph (i) it was agreed to insert a reference to the internees in Cyprus in the first sentence and to delete the second and third sentences of the paragraph.

It was agreed to delete paragraphs (ii) and (iii).

Paragraph (iv) was approved after it was agreed to delete the third sentence, and to re-write the last sentence as follows: “The Commission has informed those detainees and other interested parties who have made representations to it of the decision of the Mandatory Power”.

Sub-section (j): Municipalities and Local Councils

Paragraph (i) was approved with minor drafting changes.

It was agreed to retain only the first two sentences of paragraph (ii), and to add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: “The Commission has agreed in principle to this legislation”.

It was agreed to delete paragraph (iii).

Sub-Section (k): Requisitioning Property

The paragraph was re-written as follows: “With the exception of the residence of the High Commissioner, the Government of Palestine has no property of its own either for offices or for housing accommodations. It has found it necessary, therefore, to requisition a considerable amount of property, and, in a large number of cases, had also rented property under lease. It approached the Commission on matters relating to the liabilities raising out of the dilapidation of such property.”

Sub-section (l): Enemy Property in Palestine

Paragraphs (i) and (ii) were merged into one paragraph. It was agreed to retain in the new paragraph only the first two sentences of paragraph (i). It was further agreed to add a new sentence embodying a reservation as to the Commission’s position in the matter pending further consultations with the Mandatory Power.

Sub-Section (m): Palestine Museum in Jerusalem

Paragraphs (i) and (ii) were merged into one paragraph. It was agreed to retain in the new paragraph the first sentence of paragraph (i). It was agreed to add another sentence to the effect that the Commission had accepted the Proposals of the Government of Palestine on the understanding that no financial responsibility on the part of the Commission would be involved.

At this point the Commission took a. recess of forty-five minutes for dinner and resumed its meeting at 9445 p.m.

Upon the resumption of the meeting, there was a renewed brief discussion regarding the procedure to be followed in the consideration of the remaining parts of the report. It was again suggested that the Commission should first consider the chapter dealing with Conclusions and the draft report submitted by Mr. Medina (Bolivia), and at a later stage consider the chapter on economic, financial, end fiscal problems. It was decided to consider the three remaining parts of the report in this order: Conclusions, the Introduction embodying the draft report submitted by Mr. Medina, and the Chapter on Economic, Financial, and Fiscal Problems.

Chapter VI: Conclusions

Section 1: Review of the facts which have prevented the implementation of the Assembly’s Resolution

In paragraph (a), it was agreed to delete the second and fourth sentences. The first sentence was approved with minor drafting changes. The third sentence was re-written as follows: “The Commission appreciates the able assistance rendered to it by the Secretary-General and his staff, who have extended full co-operation to the Commission in carrying out the Assembly’s decision.

In paragraph (b), the following changes were made: the sentence in paragraph (a) containing the reference to the co-operation of the Jewish Agency with the Commission became the opening sentence of the paragraph; the phrase “The Arab League” in the first sentence was deleted; the word “invaded” in the third sentence was changed to “infiltrated”. Thus amended, the paragraph was approved with a few other minor drafting changes.

In paragraph (c), the following changes were made: the last sentence of sub-paragraph (i) was amended to read as follows: “In the view of the Mandatory Power the progressive transfer of authority refers only to those areas,”; in sub-paragraph (ii) the last part of the last sentence reading “or to establish…City of Jerusalem” was deleted; the insertion in place of the above-mentioned deletion of an additional sub-paragraph between sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) reading as follows: “The Commission could not take any measures to establish the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish Estates and the City of Jerusalem, since the Mandatory. Power informed the Commission that it could not facilitate the delimitation of frontiers on the ground”; and the deletion of the last sentence of sub-paragraph (iv). Thus amended the paragraph was approved with a few other drafting changes.

In paragraph (d), the following changes were made: in the first sentence, reference was made to the Commission’s first two reports to the Security Council instead of the first special report; and in the second sentence, the phrase “with an attempt to nullify the resolution of the General Assembly” was changed to “with a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged in the resolution of the General Assembly”.

Paragraph (e) was approved unchanged.

Section 2: Review of the problems which require an urgent solution

Paragraph (a) was approved with only minor drafting changes.

In paragraph (b), it was agreed to insert the following additional sentence at the end of the paragraph: “In view of the urgency of the matter, the Commission is presenting a special report on the subject to the Security Council with a request for its guidance, in accordance with Part I, B, 2 of the Plan.”

In paragraph (c), the first two sentences were approved with minor drafting charges. The third sentence was re-worded as follows: “The Commission calls to the attention of the Assembly the extreme urgency of the matter referred to in Chapter IV, D, 3 (e) of this report, and reports that the question of securing the services of the Jerusalem Police Force following the termination of the Mandate is still the subject of discussion with the Mandatory Power and with the Secretary-General. The Commission feels bound to point out, however, that a successful solution of this question will not provide for the security of Jerusalem in the case of civil war in Palestine. It will be of assistance to the internal protection of life and property in the City.” The last sentence reading “The Commission has been advised…and payment of their wages” was deleted.

With reference to paragraph (c), Mr. MALANIA (Chief Administrative Officer) made a statement regarding his consultations with Mr. Byron Price (Assistant Secretary-General) and Mr. Anderson (Department of Administrative and Financial Services) concerning the financing of an emergency police force for Jerusalem. He reported that Mr. Price was prepared to recommend to the Secretary-General that $200,000 be withdrawn from the Working Capital Fund to finance an emergency police force for Jerusalem for a period of one month. Mr. Price had explained that it would be very difficult for the Secretary-General to undertake a longer commitment on the eve of the meeting of the General Assembly. Financing the police force for one month would give sufficient time for the General Assembly to make its am arrangements for extending the period of financing. Mr. Price would be prepared to do this on the understanding that the Commission would itself make arrangements to present to the General Assembly the case for extending the period of the emergency police force.

Mr. Malania thought the Commission might wish to take the following steps regarding this matter.

(a) To remind the Mandatory Power that further action by the Commission depended on the receipt from it of a favourable repay.

(b) Inform Mr. Azcarate (Deputy Principal Secretary) of the matter in question so that he might take such preliminary steps in the establishment of the police force as were possible subject to the receipt of a favourable reply from the Mandatory Power.

(c) Prepare a separate paper for submission to the General Assembly on its opening day or shortly thereafter informing it of the steps the Commission and the Secretary-General were prepared to take and drawing the attention of the Assembly to the need for very early follow-up action.

Paragraphs (d) and (e) were approved uncharged.

In paragraph (f), it was agreed not to mention any figure regarding the working fund retired by the Commission, but merely to state that it would require a substantial working capital fund. A few other drafting changes were made to this paragraph.

Paragraph (g) was approved uncharged.

The meeting rose at 12.20 a.m.