Stalin, Soviets and İsraeli Question - then and now - 9- Conclusions and Notes
Download PDF - Chronologically organized
CONCLUSION OF COUNSELOR OF THE USSR MFA B.E. STEIN'S DRAFT STATUTE OF JERUSALEM DRAFTED BY THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES "
March 1, 1948
On December 1, 1947, the Trusteeship Council established an ad hoc committee to draft the Statute of Jerusalem, composed of representatives from the United Kingdom, the United States, France, China, Australia and Mexico. The representative of the United States, Gehrig, was elected Chairman of the Committee.
On January 26, 1948, the Committee approved, as a recommendation to the Trusteeship Council, the draft Statute of Jerusalem, consisting of 45 articles and a preamble.
This draft is to be discussed in the second part of the 2nd session of the Trusteeship Council. The second part of the session of the Trusteeship Council was supposed to be convened in mid-February 1948, however, there is still no information on the date for the convening of the Trusteeship Council.
The draft of the Statute of Jerusalem is mainly based on the relevant section of the UN General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947. Nevertheless, in a number of paragraphs, the draft deviates from the relevant provisions of the resolution, and all these deviations are, from our point of view, undesirable.
The main flaw in the project is to give the Governor of Jerusalem almost unlimited power to the detriment of the rights of the Legislative Council.
Extending the relevant provisions of the November 29, 1947 resolution, the draft Statute grants the Governor the following prerogatives:
1. The resolution only says that "the governor organizes special police units," (part 111 4c).
The draft Statute says that “the governor will organize ... in such quantity as he considers necessary, ...
Thus, only the governor (without any participation of the Legislative Council) is given the right to determine the number of police units (Article 5, paragraph 4).
2. This unrestricted right conferred by the Statute on the Governor is further strengthened by a special clause (33), which prohibits the Legislative Council from reducing the governor's appropriation for the maintenance of the police force.
The resolution on November 29 does not contain a corresponding decree at all.
3. The resolution says that administrative staff is provided to assist the governor (part 111 2).
The draft Statute establishes a new position for the Chief Secretary, “to be appointed by the Trusteeship Council on the recommendation of the Governor,” (art. 16)
Further, this article also establishes the “Administrative Council”, which is not provided for in the resolution, consisting of the Chief Secretary and such other chief officials and citizens as the governor may appoint, ”(Article 16).
Thus, the power of the governor not only expands on its own, but is also supplemented by the power of the General Secretary and the Administrative Council, entirely subordinate to the governor and dependent on him.
4. The resolution of November 29 grants the governor “the right of veto over bills that are incompatible” with ... “the provisions set out in the Statute of the city” (part 111 5). Further, the resolution grants the Governor “the authority to issue temporary regulations in cases where the Council (Legislative) does not adopt in a timely manner bills deemed necessary for the normal functioning of the government,” (ibid.).
The draft Statute goes much further. First of all, according to article 24 of the draft, the governor is given the right to temporarily suspend the activities of the Legislative Council (the wording of this article is not clear enough). During this time, the governor can issue laws in the form of orders, which will be binding. Further, during the activity of the Legislative Council, the Governor may also issue orders having the force of law unless the Council has passed such a bill or such resolution at such time and in such a manner as the Governor may deem reasonable and appropriate. (Article 23 p. 5).
Such an expanded formulation, deviating from the November 29 resolution (which speaks only of the timeliness of the adoption of bills), gives the governor truly unlimited rights.
5. The infringement of the rights of the Legislative Council takes place in the draft Statute also in the following respects:
a) The Chairman of the Legislative Council, according to the draft Statute, may “Not be a member of the Legislative Council, (Art. 25 p. 2).
6) The budgetary right of the Legislative Council is limited by the fact that "only the governor submits budgets to the Legislative Council," (Article 33) and nothing is said about the budget initiative of the members of the Legislative Council. Another limitation was stated above (budget for the police).
c) The rights of the Legislative Council in the field of external relations are also limited, since the governor can sign agreements only by consulting the Legislative Council on these agreements (we are talking about international agreements), but without seeking either the prior or subsequent consent of the Legislative Council.
6. The rights of the governor in the field of external relations are expanded in the direction that only he agrees to accredit representatives of any state in Jerusalem. This exclusive right may lead to the fact that the governor, at his own discretion, may not agree, for example, to the accreditation of a representative of the USSR in Jerusalem. The corresponding article (article 35, paragraph 4) of the draft does not even establish an appeal against the actions of the governor to the Trusteeship Council.
7. The resolution of November 29 does not establish the so-called working languages, defining only Arabic and Hebrew as official languages. There was a struggle on this issue in the Palestinian Committee, since it was proposed to declare only English and French working languages.
Article 30 of the draft Statute establishes that English and French are the working languages.
All the provisions of the draft Statute noted above, from our point of view, should be recognized as undesirable and unacceptable.
The statute is currently being discussed by the Trusteeship Council, where, as comrade Gromyko points out, there are disagreements between the British and the Americans. While the Americans seek to strengthen the powers of the Trusteeship Council (in the issue of governing Jerusalem), the British are doing their best to expand the authority of the governor. Obviously, the American position is more advantageous for us than the British one.
The main difficulty at the moment is that the representative of the USSR is not present at this session of the Trusteeship Council. There are no states friendly to us in the Trusteeship Council, through which we could influence the results of the discussion of the Statute.
B. Stein
WUA RF. F. 47. Op. 3.P. 11.D. 29.L. 1-4.
NOTE OF THE HEAD OF THE UN DEPARTMENT OF THE USSR MFA S.A. Vinogradov and Counselor of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs B.E. SHTEIN TO DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR A.Ya. VYSHINSKY "ON THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE DOCUMENT OF THE UN SECOND GENERAL", "RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PALESTINIAN COMMISSION OF THE UN AND THE SC "
March 15, 1948
On March 9, 1948, the UN Secretary General submitted to the Security Council a working document entitled "Relations between the UN Palestinian Commission and the Security Council," drawn up at the request of the Palestinian Commission by the Secretariat's legal experts.
The working paper drafted by the Secretariat notes that:
1. The Palestinian Commission, established by the General Assembly in accordance with Article 22 of the Charter and placed under the leadership of the Security Council for convenience and greater practicality, bears the primary responsibility for the implementation of the plan for the partition of Palestine.
2. Despite the fact that the Commission has the primary responsibility for the implementation of the plan, the Security Council must take the necessary measures and give appropriate instructions to the Commission in order to implement the resolution of the General Assembly, which, however, cannot change the essence of the partition plan.
3. The Charter, which defines the functions and powers of the Security Council, does not specifically provide for the adoption by the Council of responsibilities such as those prescribed by the Assembly resolution. However, the interpretation of the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference and the precedent of the Security Council taking responsibility for the territory of Trieste in the light of the corresponding interpretation of Article 24 of the Charter makes it possible for the Council to assume responsibility vis-à-vis Palestine, as requested by the General Assembly.
4. In view of the current situation in Palestine, the Security Council is empowered to enforce a General Assembly decision and may establish an international military force to assume responsibility for maintaining law and order immediately after the end of the mandate. This military force would be in the nature of an international police force, rather than the military force provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
Conclusions: A working document prepared by the Secretariat contains provisions that support the right of the Security Council to enforce the decision to partition Palestine. It runs counter to the American view that the Security Council does not have the power to impose a political solution by force on the recommendation of the General Assembly or the Security Council itself.
We would consider it expedient when discussing this document in the Security Council to support the point of view stated in the document.
B. Stein, S. Vinogradov
WUA RF. F. 07. Op. 21. P. 23.D. 346.L. 27-28.
NOTE OF THE HEAD OF THE UN DEPARTMENT OF THE USSR MFA S.A. VINOGRADOVA DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR A.Ya. VYSHINSKY
March 19, 1948
In connection with the decision of the Security Council to hold consultations on the Palestinian question between the five great powers, the first meeting of their representatives was held on 8 March.
Despite the fact that the Security Council dropped the relevant paragraph of the American draft resolution on consultations with the Palestinian Commission, the Mandatory Power and representatives of the main Palestinian communities, the US representative again raised the question of the need for such consultations. This US proposal was supported by the representatives of France and China.
The representative of England, in accordance with his statement in the Council about non-participation in the consultations, did not appear at the meeting, however, informing him about his consent to give information.
Representatives of the Jewish Agency and the Arab High Committee accepted the American invitation to participate in the consultation.
On March 11, the US representative distributed to the meeting participants a list of questions (an average of 9 questions) prepared by the US delegation for Jews, Arabs, the Palestinian Commission and the Mandatory Power, allegedly needed to obtain additional information.
The main questions are as follows:
1. Is the proposed partition plan acceptable to Jews and Arabs?
2. Can the partition plan be carried out by peaceful means, through an agreement between Jews and Arabs?
3. Could modifications to the adopted partition plan make it more possible to reach an agreement between Jews and Arabs?
4. Has the Palestinian Commission had new negotiations with the Mandatory Power regarding the phasing out of the mandate and the date of the commission's arrival in Palestine, and what are the results of the negotiations?
5. What are the possibilities of cooperation between Jews and Arabs with the UN administration in the city of Jerusalem?
6. Are the principles of the proposed economic union essential to the economic life of Palestine as a whole?
The questions prepared by the Americans were received during subsequent meetings, both written and oral replies from the Jewish Agency, the Arab High Committee, the Palestinian Commission and England.
Based on the replies received, it can be concluded about the attitude of the parties and the Mandatory Power to the main provisions of the partition plan.
1. About the plan of partition of Palestine into two states.
For Jews, the partition plan is acceptable, although it has not yet received "official ratification," from the Jewish community of Palestine.
The Arabs strongly oppose the partition decision and believe that “the only solution that is consistent with the ideals of the UN Charter and that can guarantee peace and security in Palestine is the formation of an independent state from all of Palestine,”.
The Mandatory Power refuses to take any measures aimed at the implementation of the partition plan. At the same time, the Mandatory Power “Will not put any obstacles to the implementation of the plan, but cannot take an active part in its implementation.
2. On the possibility of fulfilling the partition plan by peaceful means.
According to the representatives of the Jewish Agency, one cannot hope for the possibility of implementing the plan as a result of an agreement between the parties. The main obstacle to the implementation of the plan, Jews consider opposition to the plan and armed intervention from the Arab countries.
According to the representative of the Mandatory Power, the partition plan will be difficult to implement if the Palestinian Commission does not rely on military force.
The Palestinian Commission does not consider it possible to carry out the plan by peaceful means, either completely or in its most essential part, as long as the stubborn resistance of the Arabs continues.
As for the Arabs, according to the representative of the Jewish Agency, “Arabs demand from the Jews complete surrender and nothing else satisfies them.
3. About the possibility of changing (modifying) the section plan.
For Jews, no major plan changes will be acceptable.
Representatives of the Palestinian Commission responded in the negative to this question, pointing out that, since the Commission was acting in accordance with a General Assembly resolution, it was not in a position to “undertake possible modifications to the partition plan, either substantively or procedurally.”
The representative of the Mandatory Power declined to answer on this matter, saying that he did not know if such modifications could be made that would be acceptable to Arabs and Jews.
4. On the gradual termination of the mandate and the date of the arrival of the Palestinian Commission in Palestine.
According to the Commission, it had new negotiations with the Mandatory Power on these issues. The British replied that they were firmly committed to retaining undivided control over Palestine until the end of the mandate, May 15, 1948. Regarding the Commission's visit to Palestine, the Mandatory Power stated that it remained the same. Cadogan confirmed in meetings that the dates set are not subject to change..
5. On the interim UN administration over Jerusalem after the termination of the mandate.
Jews are ready to cooperate with the UN administration in the city of Jerusalem, but insist on equal representation in the Legislative Council of Jerusalem.
The Palestinian Commission on this issue is of the opinion that the establishment of a UN administration in Jerusalem will be possible only if the partition plan receives the approval of both Palestinian communities and is carried out peacefully, since with respect to all supplies and communications with the outside world, the city will be completely depend on the support of the Jewish and Arab states.
6. On the principles of the economic union of the Jewish and Arab states.
According to Jewish Agency officials, the economic union envisaged by the Assembly's plan was not proposed at the initiative of the Jews. They believed that such an alliance curtailed the sovereignty of states, and were inclined to envisage other forms of economic cooperation between Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted this part of the partition plan after some hesitation.
Conclusions:
As we expected, this information requested by the American proposal from the Jews, Arabs, the Palestinian Commission and the Mandatory Power gave almost nothing new to resolve the situation in Palestine.
The last meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council took place on 17 March Representatives of the United States, USSR, France and China developed a preliminary text of a joint statement to the Council, containing a statement of the positions of Jews, Arabs, the Palestinian Commission and the Mandatory Power regarding the plan for the partition of Palestine and the possibility of its implementation, as well as recommendations for taking measures to immediately end violent actions and restoring peace and order in Palestine. However, some points of this draft statement (on the penetration of armed elements by sea and land into Palestine), directed against Jews and Jewish immigration, provoked objections from the representative of the USSR, who reserved his position on them.
In this regard, Comrade Gromyko approached us with a proposal that he should seek to correct the unacceptable paragraphs of the text of the statement. Comrade Molotov on March 19 answered Comrade Gromyko agreed with his proposal.
If the representatives of the United States, France and China do not agree to our amendments to the draft, then the corresponding points of the joint statement will be submitted to the Security Council on behalf of the three powers without the approval of the USSR.
S. Vinogradov
WUA RF. F. 07. Op. 21. P. 23.D. 346.L. 42-45.
Translated From Russian; Svitlana M
Continue
.jpg)
No comments