Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The United States Delegation opposed any proposal looking towards the application of sanctions since there was no factual basis for taking such action. As to the proposed reaffirmation of the 1946 resolution, the United States Delegation had expressed doubts last year as to its probable efficacy and these doubts had been confirmed during the intervening period. The United States Delegation therefore opposed reaffirmation of last year's resolution.

The First Committee appointed a drafting subcommittee, composed of the members that had submitted proposals, to draw up a single joint proposal. This subcommittee proposed a resolution reaffirming the resolution of December 12, 1946, and expressing its confidence that the Security Council would exercise its responsibilities under the Charter as soon as it considered that the situation in regard to Spain so required. This resolution was adopted by the First Committee by a vote of 29 to 6, with 20 abstentions. The United States opposed the paragraph reaffirming the 1946 resolution. In the plenary session this paragraph failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority. The remainder of the resolution was adopted by a vote of 36 to 5, with 12 abstentions, the United States voting for it.

8. Suggestions to the Countries Concerned With the Peace Treaty With Italy

It will be recalled that the Italian treaty had just come into force on the eve of the opening of the Assembly. More than any other single factor, perhaps, it was this element of recency which made consideration of whether the Assembly should discuss suggestions for revision of the treaty a controversial question. In addition there was general hesitance in the prevailing circumstances to attempt to recommend revision of a treaty.

EXTENT OF CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The question of revision of the Italian peace treaty was brought before the Assembly in items proposed by Argentina, Ecuador, and Honduras. The Argentine item was supported by Paraguay, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Panama, Uruguay, and the Dominican Republic. The matter was first discussed on September 20 and 21 in the General Committee in terms of whether to recommend to the Assembly that it consider the question.

The General Committee gave chief attention to the Argentine item which, after being rephrased at the instance of Chile to read "Suggestions to the Countries Concerned with the Peace Treaty with Italy",

was recommended to the Assembly for inclusion on the agenda, by a vote of but 4 in favor, including the United States. Eight delegations abstained.

On September 23, in the ninetieth and ninety-first plenary sessions of the Assembly, there was debate on whether to discuss the matter. Opposition came from the Soviet Union, Ethiopia, and Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom, France, and Chile had doubts about the constitutional powers of the Assembly with respect to the revision of a treaty so recently put into force; Australia, Argentina, Ecuador, and the United States favored Assembly discussion without prejudice to what kind of action the Assembly might take. By a show-of-hands vote it was decided to include the treaty item on the agenda. The vote was 22 in favor (including the United States), 8 against, with 19 abstentions and with 6 delegations absent.

The attitude of the United States was a natural outgrowth of our policy of assisting and encouraging the democratic Italian Government and the Italian people along the road of national reconstruction and stability. It was also in accord with our concept of the free range of discussion which appertains to the General Assembly. The United States did not contemplate initiating any specific proposals unless such proposals were generally desired.

United States views on the Italian treaty had been publicly stated on earlier occasions by the President and the Secretary of State. Their statements had included the view that suitable readjustments ought eventually to be possible "within the framework of the United Nations" and in the light of future experience. Such a policy did not contemplate that the United Nations should itself, at some future date, undertake to revise the Italian treaty; it did express the belief that the United Nations could and should be ready to assist in bringing about such readjustments as the international community might feel desirable within the scope of the Charter through the processes of peaceful change.

The Political and Security Committee late in October placed this matter at the end of its agenda. However, since general sentiment had developed in the Assembly by mid-November that the question could not or perhaps should not be gone into at the current session, Argentina decided on November 19 to withdraw the item.

9. Treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa

An Assembly resolution of December 8, 1946, declared that friendly relations between India and the Union of South Africa had been impaired by the difficulties arising from discrimination against Indians in South Africa. The resolution stated that the treatment of

Indians in South Africa should be in conformity with the international obligations of the two members under the agreements concluded between them and under the relevant provisions of the Charter, and it requested the two Governments to report to the Assembly at its next session the measures which they had taken to those ends. Both Governments rendered reports which showed that no progress had been made in reaching a solution. In this form the matter was on the agenda of this session of the Assembly. The debate on this matter was happily marked by less strain and was notably more an exchange · of reasoned views than had prevailed the year before.

CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSEMBLY

The Indian Delegation initially submitted a resolution reaffirming the 1946 resolution, expressing regret at the refusal of the Government of South Africa to accept the implementation of the resolution as a basis for discussion with the Government of India and at its failure to take any steps for such implementation, and requesting the two Governments to enter into a round-table conference on "the basis" of 'that resolution without delay, and to invite the Government of Pakistan to participate in such round-table discussions. It requested further that the results of such discussions be reported to the SecretaryGeneral, who should from time to time make inquiries and report to the Assembly at its next session.

The Indian Delegation accepted an amendment submitted by the Mexican Delegation, and thus deleted the regret clause in its own draft resolution. Other proposals were introduced calling for discussions between the two Governments and, if such discussions failed, a request to the International Court of Justice for an opinion as to their mutual rights and obligations in the matter.

It was the view of the United States Delegation that the efforts of the Assembly should be directed towards encouraging friendly and direct discussions between the two Governments concerned at a roundtable conference. Accordingly, the United States Delegation did not favor a resolution reaffirming last year's resolution, which has borne no fruit and which again would encumber and weigh down the hope of progress the coming year as it did during the past year, leaving the matter largely where it now stands, if indeed not worsened. The United States Delegation instead favored a resolution which, while taking into consideration last year's resolution, should not require that last year's resolution be the basis of discussion, to the exclusion of a broader basis for a round-table conference resting upon the whole history of the problem and all the factors involved. In addition, the United States still believed, as in 1946, that clarification by judicial

means of essential doubts concerning the mutual rights and obligations of the two Governments would be helpful in arriving at a solution of their problem.

DECISION AGAINST ANY RESOLUTION

The First Committee adopted the Indian resolution as amended by 29 to 15 votes, with 5 abstentions. In the plenary session of the Assembly, however, that resolution, failing to receive the necessary twothirds majority, was rejected by 31 to 19 votes, with 6 abstentions. The United States voted against the resolution as a whole in the First Committee, and again in the plenary session, because the fourth paragraph reaffirmed last year's resolution and the fifth paragraph called for a round-table conference on the basis of that resolution solely.

The resolution introduced in the First Committee by Belgium, Brazil, and Denmark, suggesting the advisability of clarification by the International Court of Justice of certain legal aspects of the dispute and the submission of the entire question to the Court in the event that the two parties failed to reach an agreement through direct negotiations, was rejected by 24 to 18 votes, with 6 abstentions. The United States vote was cast in favor of this resolution.

These results in the plenary meeting had been forecast by the nature of the debate in the Committee and the character of the divided vote there. At the time of the consideration of the problem in the plenary meeting, therefore, a joint resolution was introduced by Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Denmark, and Norway in an effort to reach an acceptable phrasing of the various views advanced. This draft resolution called upon the governments concerned to continue their efforts to reach an agreement through a round-table conference or other direct means, or, if necessary, by mediation or conciliation, or, should they fail to reach such an agreement, to submit the question of the extent of the said obligations under the agreements concluded between them and under the relevant provisions of the Charter to the International Court of Justice. However, this compromise resolution was also rejected, by 24 votes for to 29 against, with 3 abstentions. The United States voted for this resolution.

The result was that the Assembly passed no resolution on this problem.

10. Palestine

The small country of Palestine, about the size of Vermont, has been a center of international rivalry intermittently since the beginning of human history. It lies near the crossroads of the Old World, where the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa meet. Its shrines

are sacred to Christians, Jews, and Moslems throughout the world; yet its soil has been the battleground of many different nations and empires. Today the Holy Land tests the ability of the world community to make a peaceable disposition of this problem, now marked by strife.

The problem of Palestine in modern times arose after the first World War as a result of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Palestine was placed under a League of Nations mandate with the United Kingdom as the mandatory power. On a number of occasions in the 25 years thereafter the United Kingdom attempted, unsuccessfully, to persuade the inhabitants of Palestine to agree upon their future status. More recently, the United Kingdom and the United States tried jointly-through the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and the Morrison-Grady conversations in 1946-to find a solution. The conflicting views and desires of the Arabs and Jews made impossible any settlement of this question.

Throughout the period of the mandate, and more recently in debates in the General Assembly during 1947, the Arabs have sought the immediate creation of an independent Palestine. They have insisted that the 1,200,000 Arabs in Palestine, comprising two thirds of the population, have a right, in accordance with the principle of self-determination, to determine the status of that country and to develop an independent state without interference from the outside. The Arabs have also claimed that they acquired special rights in Palestine from certain promises and pledges made during the first World War. They have contended that the League of Nations mandate, providing for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, was illegal. They have insisted upon curtailment of immigration. They have denied that the United Nations has any right to recommend or impose a solution of the question of the disposition of Palestine which does not recognize what they consider to be the interests of the Arab population in Palestine.

The Jews, on the other hand, have sought unlimited Jewish immigration into Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state therein. The Jews have based their claims upon their ancient interest in the country, upon their historic quest for a national home, which was recognized by the Balfour declaration, and upon the League mandate. The Jews have maintained that, having devoted their lives and fortunes in the past 30 years to building a community of 600,000 persons in Palestine, they cannot now be deprived of their right to create an independent state. In more recent years they have argued that a Jewish state is needed to assure a refuge for the European victims of Nazi persecution. They have contended that Jewish immigrants

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »