Stalin, Soviets and İsraeli Question - then and now - 2
MINUTES RECORD OF THE SPEECH OF THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF THE USSR TO THE UN A.A. Gromyko AT THE SESSION OF THE FIRST COMMITTEE A OF THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
April 20, 1948
A.A. Gromyko (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) shares the fears of a
number of delegations that the partition plan was not implemented, that the
Palestinian issue is being discussed by the General Assembly for the third
time, and that one of the Assembly states does not correspond the interests of
the Palestinian people and does not contribute to the maintenance of international
peace *.
According to the partition plan adopted by the General Assembly, the
Palestinian Commission should take some measures to create Jewish and Arab
states in Palestine. This commission should receive instructions and assistance
from the Security Council.
The Security Council, however, not only did not take the necessary
measures to implement this decision of the General Assembly, but, on the
contrary, complicated the implementation of this plan.
Mr. Gromyko attributes the Security Council's inaction mainly to the position taken by the United States, which is trying to change the decision of the General Assembly. While initially the United States used all its influence to pass the partition plan, it suddenly changed its line on this issue. This change of position was clear as early as 9 December 1947 at the very first meeting at which the Security Council was to discuss measures to implement the decision of the General Assembly. Beginning on November 29, 1947, when the partition plan was adopted, the United States prepared its own plan, which was formally presented to the Security Council on March 19, 1948, which provided for the establishment of the United Nations trusteeship over Palestine.
Since the last session of the Assembly, public opinion, even in the
United States, has found that the position taken by the latter on the
Palestinian question is in fact aimed at frustrating the General Assembly
resolution. Nobody believed the official denials of the United States. Everyone
understood that the United States was preparing a fatal blow to the adopted
partition decision and was hatching some new plans with regard to Palestine.
They are trying to convince us that the new plan is better than the previous
one, although in reality the opposite is true.
The argument is advanced that the partition plan cannot be carried out
by peaceful means. This argument would merit attention only if the Security
Council took any practical steps to implement this decision, but this was not
done.
The inaction of the Security Council in recent months has been the
result of the position taken by the United States, the United Kingdom, and some
other States.
The Security Council has been making no headway without achieving any
useful results. The decision he rendered on March 5, 1948 (document S / 691)
was only a simple appeal to the permanent members of the Security Council to
make their recommendations to the Palestinian Commission.
The corresponding resolution also contained an appeal to all governments
and peoples to do their utmost to put an end to the unrest in Palestine. This
decision, however, did not help the Palestinian Commission, and it did not
contain the necessary instructions for the implementation of the partition
plan. The appeal to governments and peoples to end the unrest in Palestine
remained without consequences, since those to whom it was addressed knew that
they could count on complete impunity for their actions.
The meetings of the permanent members of the Security Council have
brought to light the fact that the United States is not only unwilling to
discuss how a General Assembly decision could be implemented, but wants that
decision to be reviewed. From the very beginning, the representative of the
United States proposed to arrange consultations with Jews and Arabs, as if
there was no decision on Palestine, after which he tried to prove that the
decision made was allegedly impossible to enforce by peaceful means. He did not
mention, however, that the Security Council had not exhausted the possibilities
at its disposal to carry out a General Assembly decision. The last armistice
resolution adopted by the Security Council (document S / 723) is not being
implemented by those who from the outset decided to fight against the General
Assembly decision of November 29, 1947.
Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics recalls that
after a comprehensive study of this issue and after discussing all the other
proposed solutions, the United Nations has come to the conclusion that the
partition of Palestine into two States is the fairest solution.
It is the most just because it meets the national interests of both
peoples of Palestine, it will settle relations between these peoples once and
for all and this will ensure the maintenance of peace in the Middle East. The
representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics recalls that after a
comprehensive study of this issue and after discussing all the other proposed
solutions, the United Nations has come to the conclusion that the partition of
Palestine into two states is the most just solution. It is the most just
because it corresponds to the national interests of both peoples of Palestine,
it will settle relations between these peoples once and for all and this will
ensure the maintenance of peace in the Middle East.
Mr. Gromyko points out that the struggle between the two peoples increased
during the period of the United Kingdom's mandate.
The partition plan, which provides for close economic cooperation
between the two states, could put an end to this struggle. Carrying out the
partition would mean the end of the semi-colonial order in Palestine and the
recognition that the Jewish and Arab populations, in terms of their political, economic,
and cultural development, have reached such a level that allows each of them to
create their own independent state. The division would also satisfy the
legitimate aspirations of the Jewish people, who suffered so much during the
existence of the Hitlerite regime.
When discussing the Palestinian question, everyone should keep in mind
all these advantages of partition. Apparently, however, some states are ruled
not by the needs of Palestine, not by the general interests of the United
Nations, but by the political, economic, military and military-strategic
interests of one or two powers. These states are ready to sacrifice the
aspirations of the peoples of Palestine if this does not correspond to the
interests of the leading circles of the United States. The change in the
position of the United States on the Palestinian issue is dictated by its oil
and military interests. Well-known influential circles, reflecting these
interests, are trying to turn Palestine into their strategic and military base,
and economically into an American semi-colony.
The trusteeship plan proposed by the United States is likely to
exacerbate the struggle in Palestine, threaten peace, and heighten anxiety in
the Middle East. In addition, the establishment of guardianship over Palestine
does not correspond to the current cultural and political level of development
of the Jewish and Arab population. This plan is incompatible with the right to
self-determination of the peoples of Palestine, and it will actually put this
country in a position of colonial slavery with all the disastrous consequences
that come with it.
Finally, the United States plan puts the General Assembly in a false
position: the Assembly, after a long study of the issue, adopted a partition
plan with the active participation of the United States, and now the same plan
is becoming the object of political machinations of the American ruling
circles.
The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics further
accuses the Mandatory Power of using every means available to it to prevent the
implementation of the General Assembly resolution. Great Britain opposed the
arrival of the Palestinian Commission in Palestine, as a result of which the
latter was unable to begin on the spot the preparatory work necessary to
implement the partition decision.
The Commission was only allowed to come to Palestine on May 1 -in other
words, two weeks before the end of the mandate - and the United Kingdom refused
even to guarantee the Commission the safety of its stay in the country during
those two weeks. The Government of the United Kingdom has thus attempted to
transform the Palestinian Commission into a body that could discuss the issue,
but not take any practical steps to implement the decision of the General
Assembly. Thus, the United Kingdom has jeopardized the entire plan for the
partition of the country. It also revised the part of the General Assembly
resolution referring to the opening in Palestine from 1 February 1948. port for
Jewish immigration. All these facts, together with the report of the
Palestinian Commission, prove that the United Kingdom is largely responsible
for all the complications that have arisen in connection with the question of
the future of Palestine.
Despite all the efforts of the United Kingdom to justify its actions in
Palestine, it is clear that its purpose is to undermine the partition decision
and thus pander to those elements in the Middle East who wish to derail the
partition plan. The Mandatory Power not only failed to ensure elementary order
in Palestine, but even opened the borders of that State to armed gangs that had
infiltrated Palestine in order to fight there against the implementation of the
Assembly's decision.
The policies of the United Kingdom and the United States undoubtedly
have a lot in common. The behavior of these two states on the Palestinian issue
has dealt a serious blow to the authority of the United Nations, which, in
fact, has not been reckoned with for a long time by the ruling circles of the
United States. It is also clear that the responsibility for this situation lies
with those states that have set themselves the goal of disrupting the partition
plan and imposing the United Nations, which, in fact, has not been reckoned
with for a long time by the ruling circles of the United States.
It is also clear that the responsibility for this situation lies with
those states that have set themselves the goal of disrupting the partition plan
and imposing on the United Nations a solution that is dictated by the selfish
interests of the ruling circles of the United States. The Soviet delegation
will therefore vote against the United States proposal to establish a
trusteeship regime in Palestine.
The USSR delegation believes that the decision to partition Palestine is
the right decision and that the United Nations must take effective measures to
implement it.
United Nations. Official records of the Second Special Session of the General Assembly. Volume 1 /. G. main committees. Summary records of meetings from 16 anpe.l.R by 14 MtlJI 1948. - New York, 1948.- S. 9-10.
Translated From Russian; Svitlana M
Continue
NOTE FROM THE HEAD OF THE MIDDLE EASTERN DEPARTMENT USSR MFA I. N. BAKULINA TO DEPUTY MINISTER FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.A. ZORIN May 15, 1948
.jpg)
No comments