sign in sign up
<<
Home , February 1958, Harold Beeley, July 1959, June 1959, Koto Matsudaira, Mario Amadeo

~m'.~~~~!RB_"_""..... "'_Bii_~;·'/'

UNITED NATIONS

REPORT OF THE SECURITY COUNCU TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 16 July 1958 to 15

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL RECORDS : FOURTEENTH SESSION SUPPLEMENT No. 2 (A!4190)

( 45 p.) NEW YORK · ,

UNITED NATIONS

REPORT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

16 July 1958 to 15 July 1959

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL RECORDS : FOURTEENTH SESSION SUPPLEMENT No. 2 CA/4190>

New York, 1959 - T

NOTE Symbois of l"nited Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.

,.Li

< ,.1 " ,to .....- ,·'-'-T~~'~'-"~""-' ,.""~=,,,•.,,._-~~~._~--

) TABLE OF CONTENTS

) Page INTRODUCTION I ...... , '" . V PART I

r Questions considered by the Security Council under its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security

I, Cha.pter 1. LETTER DATED 22 MAY 1958 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF LEBANO:N ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL CONCERNING: "COMPLAINT BY IN RESPECT OF A SITUATION ARISING FROM THE INTERVENTION OF THE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF LEBANON, THE CONTINUANCE OF \VHICH Is LIKELY 1'0 ENDANGER THE MAINTENANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY" . 1 LETTER DATED 17 JULY 1958 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ADDRESSED TO THE PRES;DENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL CONCERN­ ING: "COMPLAINT BY THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN OF INTER­ FERENCE IN ITs DOMESTIC AFFAIRS BY THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC" .. 1 A. Further consideration of the complaint by Lebanon . 1 B. Submission of the complaint by Jordan . 3 C. Security Council resolution of 7 August 1958 . 13 D. Further reports (If the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon and withdrawal of the Group . 16 E. Removal of the Lebanese complaint from the list of matters of which the Security Council is s'~ized . 17

THE PALESTINE QUESTION ,. 18 A. Complaint by against the United Arab Republic concerning an incident of 3 December 1958 in the Huleh area . 18 B. Complaint by Israel against the United Arab Republic concerning an incident of 23 at Ma'ale Habashan . 21 C. Other communications . 22

PART n

Other matters considered by the Council

3. THE DATE OF ELECTION TO FILL A VACANCY IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ...... 25

4. ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS...... 25 A. Application of the Republic of ...... 25 B. Consideration of proposals relating to the applications of the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Viet-Nam ,, ,.... 25 I i I 111 ) I" i I .. raw 3",. 1. 1'" N PART III The Military Staff Committee Page Chapter T 5. WORK OF THE MILITARY STAFF COMMITTEE . 29

! T PART IV f Ass Arti Matters brought to the attention of the Security Council the but m)t discussed in the Council E. lines stitu 6. COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE -PAKISTAN QUESTION . 31 34 7. REpORTS ON THE STRATEGIC TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS .. 1Tl 34 to th 8. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES .... uncle A/21 9. COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE SITUATION IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA . 35

10. COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING PROPOSALS FOR THE CONVENING OF A MEETING OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENTS...... 35

11. LETTER DATED 25 JULY 1958 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL...... 36

12. REpORT OF THE CONFERENCE OF EXPERTS TO STUDY THE POSSIBILITY OF DETECTING VIOLATIONS OF A POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ON THE SUSPEN- SION OF NUCLEAR TESTS...... 36

13. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED ARAB REpUBLIC RELATING TO THE SUEZ CANAL ,.. .. . 36

14. LETTER DATED 29 SEPTEMBER 1958 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF LIBYA ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL...... 36

15. COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE SITUATION ON THE CAMBODIAN- THAI FRONTIER ...... 37

16. QUESTION OF MEASURES TO PREVENT SURPRISE ATTACK...... 37

17. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF AND 38

18. COMMUNICATIONS FROM AND THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND ...... 38

19. COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THE KOREAN QUESTION...... 38

20. LETTER DATED 10 JULY 1959 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF AFGHANIS­ TAN, BURMA, CEYLON, , THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA, , GUINEA, , IRAN, , JORDAN, LEBANON, , LIBYA, MOROCCO, , PAKISTAN, SAUDI ARABIA, SUDAN, TUNISIA, THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC AND YEMEN CONCERNING .... 39

Appendices

I. Representatives and deputy, alternate and acting representatives accred- ited to the Security Council...... 40 Il. Presidents of the Security Council...... 40 Ill. Meetings of the Security Council during the period from 16 July 1958 to 15 July 1959 ...... 41

IV. Representatives, Chairmen and Principal Secretaries of the Military Staff Committee (16 July 1958 to 15 July 1959) ...... 41

iv ---='- I

INTRODUCTION

The present reportl is submitted to the General constitute the only comprehensive and authoritative Assembly by the Security Council in accordance with account of its deliberations. Article 24, paragraph 3, and Article 15, paragraph 1, of the Charter. With respect to the membership of the Security Coun­ cil during the period covered, it will be recalled that the Essentially a summary and guide reflecting the broad General Assembly, at its 775th plenary meeting on lines of the debates, the report is not intended as a sub­ 8 October 1958, elected , Italy and Tunisia as stitute for the records of the Security Council, which non-permanent members of the Council to fill vacancies ( resulting from the expiration, on 31 December 1958, of the term of office of Colombia, Iraq and . 1 This is the fourteenth annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly. The previous reports were submitted The period covered in the present report is from 16 under the symbols A/93, A/366, A/620, A/945, A/1361, A/1873, July 1958 to 15 July 1959. The Council held seventeen A/2167, N2437, A/2712, A/2935, A/3157, A/3648 and A/3901. meetings during that period.

v I 1!~J:.. l(J...~·..... PART I !:I<' Questions considered by the Security Council under its responsihility for the maintenance of international peace and security

Chapter 1

LETTER DATED 22 MAY 1958 FROM THE REPUESENTATIVE OF LEBANON ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL CONCERNING: "COMPLAINT BY LEBANON IN f RESPECT OF A SITUATION ARISING FROM THE INTERVENTION OF THE Ul\1TED ARAB REPUBLIC IN TIlE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF LEBANON, THE CONTINUANCE OF WHICH IS Lll{ELY TO ENDA__~GER THE 1l'IMNTENANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY"

LETTER DATED 17 JULY 1958 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF JORDAN ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURI'l'Y COUNCIL CONCERNING: "COMPLAINT :BY THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM: OF JORDA.l\J OF INTERFERENCE IN ITS DOMESTIC AFFAIRS BY THE lJNITED ARAB REPUBLIC"

A. Further consideration of the complaint which his Government attached to the role of the Obser­ hyLehanon1 vation Group and declared that the forces would co-operate with the Group in every way. The 1. On 16 July 1958, the United Nations Observation Secretary-General was in the best position to determine Group in Lebanon submitted, through the Secretary­ and to work out, in co-operation with the Government General, an interim report (S/4051) to the Security . of Lebanon, additional measures which would help to Council. It stated that, on 15 July, the Group had com­ improve the operations of the Group. The United States pleted the task of oLtainiilg full freedom of access to was confident that he would continue to take everv all sections of the Lebanese frontier, and provided feasible ste9 to that end. In that connection, the United details of the arrangements made. States delegation recognized that the means available to 2. At the 829th meeting of the council on 16 July the Group were insufficient to meet all aspects of the 1958, the Secretary-General, noting that the interim serious situation. The draft resolution therefore envis­ report of the Observation Group described the comple­ aged further additional measures by the United Nations ti:ln of arrangements for inspection all aloag the Leba­ in order to protect Lebanon's independence. That would nese border, expressed the hope that the Group would make possible a prompt withdrawal of United States retain its key position although it might not be the only armed forces. The task of the contingents would be, first, tool used by the United Nations in the effort to ensure to protect the territorial integrity and independence of against infiltration and the smuggling of arms. Lebanon, and secondly, to ensure that there was no imi.l­ 3. The representative of the United States said that tration of persolmel, or st.:uply of arms or other mate:'iel. the United States draft resolution (S/4050 and Corr. United Nations forces would not be there to engage in 1) 2 had three principal purposes. It fully supported and hostilities or to fight a war, although it should be fully sought to strengthen the operations of the Observation clear that they would have the authority to fire in self­ Group; it provided the basis for additional arrangements defence in performance of their duties to prevent infil­ by the Secretary-General with a view to making con­ tration and to protect the integrity of Lebanon. The tingents available, as necessary, as a further measure to reference to the General Assembly resolutions entitled protect the territorial integrity and political independ­ "Essentials of peace" and "Peace through deeds" was ence of Lebanon and to ensure that there was no illegal relevant as a reminder that the United Nations must infiltration of personnel or supply of arms or other meet and deal effectively with the problem of indirect mathiel across the Lebanese borders; and would make aggression. it possible for the United States forces to withdraw 4. The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist promptly if the provisions of the draft resolution were Republics said that, although the United States repre­ quickly carried out. He emj:hasized the importance sentative praised the Observation Group, the results of the work of that Group were ignored, rejected or 1 For the previous consideration or this matter by the Security Council, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Thir­ doubted. Whereas the United States draft resolutinn teenth Session, Supplement No. 2, chapter 6. represented infiltration as continuing, there was no 2See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth reference to what the Council had been told in that Session, Supplement No. 2, para. 420. . respect by the Observation Group. There was nothing in Pact and the reports of the Observatiun Group or the s!;,tements proper and healthy, and the subversion of the inde­ hower Doctrine. T of the Secretary-Gener~l.to support the asse;tlon of the pendence of small nations. ~tates creation of the Re representative of the l mted that, wIth the out­ 7. The representative of Japan expressed deep con­ tility. The Preside break of the revolt in Iraa, the infiltration of arms and cern over the recent developments in the l\liddle Eastern make a statement , hI'~ 3 personnel had suddenly become I11UC more armmg. situation. There was much room for argument with United States, the Statements in the Fnited States Press, he contmued, left regard to the recent Fnited States move in Lebanon. their troops to Le no doubt that the Cnited States troops were in Lebanon His delegation shared the view of the representative of that in Lebanon el not to uphold the Chamoun Government but to prevent the United States that it was not an ideal way to solve basis in strictly do the further spread of the disea.se o! Arab natio~alism present problems. The right thing for the Council to do dlffi~ult American troops il which wa:; coming from Iraq. Smce It would be in the circumstances would be to take a step which would vention in regard to cure that disease, it could be assumed that somethmg assist in bringing about a situation where an early evac~­ Le~a~lOn ~al11e That was demon. else was being planned in The of.Jordan ation of the United States forces became possible. H1s States Governmen had been mentioned, and pumttve operatlOns agamst the delegation had some misgivings concerning the circum­ with events in In new Government of Iraq were also being envisaged. stances which had made necessary the landing of L'nited Hussein of Jordan There was thus a great abyss between the high-sounding States forces, but would support the United States draft protedors, had tak \vords used by the Cnitet.: States and the dark plans resolution with the following observations: operative himself to be the which those words were intended to cover. paragraph 1 appeared not quite consonant with the Jordan Federation 5. The United States representative had stated, the report of the Observatior. Group and his delegation had USSR representative continued, that the United S!a.tes to reserve its position concerning the contribution of 11. The armed troops did not wish to fight. Statements of opposItIon contingents. f Lebanon, ti:e US great threat to the 1eaders in Lebanon made it apparent, however, that they 8. At the 830th meeting on 16 July, the representative would ha':e to fight the Lebanese people. Adoption of reaching conseque of the United Arab Republic reiterated that the armed course of gross vi the United States draft resolution would mean endors­ intervention of the United States in Lebanon was un­ ing armed intervention and an act of aggression against Nations, the Unitl justified and that, as the statements of the Secretary­ confr('1'}t the Secu the Lebanese people specifically and the Arab people General and the l)bservation Group attested, the situa­ generally. That the Council could not do. Refere~ce hacl as a whole with a tion in that country had been improving continuously. to obtain United been made to provisions of the Charter c?ncerm?s (P": The Council was faced in Lebanon with a civil war­ I right of self-defence, ~ut the Charter saId speclfi~ally aggressive action. a Lebanese problem which the Lebanese themselves as a result of the l that that right was enjoyed when there was a dIrect would have to resolve. The Iraqi events were also ~ attack when a State was threatened from outside. No supported by the strictly internal in nature and likewise could not justify Council and the such situation had been noted in Lebanon by the Council the intervention. Article 51 of the Charter did not apply: or by any other organ of th~ United .Nations, an1 of urgent and empha there had been no armed aggression against Lebanon, sion and to upho course none had existed. The mtroductlOn of American and the matter had already been discussed in the Coun­ troops, however, was a very gra,:e threat. not only to the Arab countries w cil, which had adopted a resolution on it on 11 June 1958. voked atta('k. Th independence of Lebanon but to mternatlOnal peace and it was regrettable that the Cnited States should have security in the area and throughout the world. No self­ pealed to the Gov taken such a decision unilaterally. Its action recalled its armed interv<.: respecting independent State, the uSSR represen!a~ive painful memories and would detract from the reputa­ declared, would ever agree to send even so-called U.n.lted Arab countries a tion of the L'nited States in the l\liddle East. He quoted from Lebanon. Nations contingents to Lebanon under the condItIOns the text of a message, addressed to the President of the now extant there. The Charter envisaged the establish­ indifferent to the Security Council and to the Secretary-General by the threat to an area ment of an international force to assist the victims of President of the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies, pro­ aggression in repelling aggression, but the G'bserntion it assumed freedol testing against the landing of American forces, which the interests of th Group had not reported,.and. the Council had.n?t not~d, was termed a threat to peace and security in the ::\Iid­ the existence of aggressIOn m Lebap.on. If "Lmted ~a­ die East, and demanding their immediate eyacuation. 12. The Secreta tions contingents were sent, it would be merely to sup­ to questions put by press the Lebanese people .in flagra?t c.ontradiction ~o 9. Referring to the United States draft resolution, that no communic the Charter which forbade mterventlOn m the domestIc the representative of the Gnited Arab Republic declared from the Presiden affairs of States. The appropriate course for the Council that operative paragraph 1 was not consistent with the ties. report of the Observation Group or with the facts. to follow was charted in the CSSR draft resolution 13. The represe (S/4047).4 If the Council did not take the steps envis­ Further, the Council could not endorse the armed inter­ \-ention of the Lnited States, as was suggested in the element to which r arred in that proposal, it \vould have to share the respon­ vision of militar sibility for the deterkration of the international situa­ preamble. His delegation also had misgivings concern­ ing operative paragraph 3. \Vhat would the United Lebanon was even ation, which the Cnited States had so far borne alone. would seem to be 6. The representative of the united States, in reply, ;\;ations forces have to do and on what basis \vould they be sent to Lebanon? Finally, referring to the reports in Lebanon. To declared that his delegation thought that the united fronted with a de Nations was not helpless against aggression by internal cited by the representative of the United States at the previous meeting, he declared that it was unwise to put from another Stat subversion from without, whereas the USSR represen­ ation, that was no tative thought that it was. The situation in Lebanon was on record il"l the Council information receiyed from in­ telligence sources. The Council was not in a posilion to jurisdiction of the part of a much bigger pidure. In that connexion, he consider such information. he referred to Ar cited various reports received by the United. ?tat~s On the other han rerrarding assistance to members of the 0pposltton m 10. The representative of the Union of Soviet Social­ States had acted L~banon from the United Arab Republic. He empha­ ist Republics read a statement by his Government ill pressed in the Cha sized that no country was more friendly to Arab na­ connexion with the events in the Middle and Near East. apparently consid tionaiism than the United States; the United States In that statement, the USSR Government declared that accordance with A Government had demonstrated that on many an occa­ the real reason for the armed intervention of the United Article. Accordin sion. But there was a fundamental difference between States in Lebanon was the attempt of the oil monopolies came under the ex the normal dspirations of , which were of the United States and of other western countries to conditions for Ar retain their colonial domination in the countries of the armed attack had 3 Ibid., para. 387. Middle and Near East and also the obvious bankruptcy Swedish Governm 4 Ibid., para. 409. of their policies in that area, the bankruptcy of the 2 Baghdad Pact and ot the ill-fated and notorious Eisen­ tion had been fulfilled in the present case, nor did it hower Doctrine. Thus the colonial Powers had met the consider that there was an international conflict in the creation of the Republic of Iraq with unconcealed hos­ terms of Article 51. The action taken by the United tility. The President of Lebanon had been inspirerl to States Government had substantially altered the condi­ make a statement requesting the Governments of the tions of the obsen·ers in Lebanon, and the question was United States, the United Kingdom and France to send whether in practice they were able to fulfil their task as their troops to Lebanon. It was well known, however, set forth in the Council resolution of 11 June. The that in Lebanon events were occurring which had their proper course to take, in his Government's opinion, basis in strictly domestic considerations. The landing of might be to suspend until further notice the activities American troops in Lebanon was an act of armed inter­ of the observers in Lebanon. vention in regard to all freedom-loving Arab countries. 14. The representative of the United States hoped That was demonstrated by the fact that the United that the Observation Group would not be suspended and States Government had linked the dispatch of its troops that, on the contrary, it would continue and would de­ with events in Iraq, as well as by the fact that King velop its activities. Hussein of Jordan, obviously acting on the advice of his 15. The Secretary-General stated that he hoped to protedors, had taken the provocative step of announcing have, by the following day, an elaboration of the pre­ hhl'lself to be the head of the already defunct Iraqi­ liminary report presented that day by the Observation Jordan Federation. Group, an elaboration which might give a more satis­ 11. The armed intervention of the United States in factory basis for an evaluation of the significance of ! Lebanon, ti:e USSR statement continued, created a that operation in the existing situation. great threat to the peace and was fraught with very far­ 16. On 17 July, the Secretary-General transmitted to reaching consequences. Having embarked upon the the Security Council the second interim report (S/4052) course of gross violation of the Charter of the United of the Observation Group. In his letter of transmittal, Nations, the United States Government now sought to he stated that he fully endorsed the plan outlined in the confrC'tlt the Security Council and the United Nations report as representing an adequate interpretation of the as a whole with a fait accompli and, through pressure, Security Council resolution of 11 June, in the light of to obtain United Nations endorsement of its unilateral the needs and possibilities flowing from the progressive I aggressive action. The situation which had developed development of the operatior.s of the Gr0up. In that as a result of the open aggression of the United States, regard, he referred to the interpretation of that resolu­ r supported by the colonial Powers, was such that the tion that he had made on 15 July.6 t Council and the General Assembly must take the most 17. In its second interim report, the Observation urgent and emphatic measures to put an end to aggres­ Group set out the results of a review of its needs in the sion and to uphold the national independence of the light of its having secured access to all sections of the Arab countries which had been subjected to an unpro­ Lebanese frontier on 15 July. Among other things, it voked attac-k. The USSR Government insistently ap­ stated its intention to suggest to the Secretary-General pealed to the Government of the United States to end that a force of unarmed non-commissioned personnel its armed interv{;lltion in the domestic affairs of the and other ranks should be assigned to it, indicated that Arab countries and to withdraw forthwith its troops the number of observers would have to be raised to 200, from Lebanon. The could not remain and described its requirements in respect of aircraft and indifferent to the events which constituted a serious crews. The actual strategy of observation activities, the threat to an area adjacent to its national frontiers and Group said, had been undergoing a fundamental change it assumed freedom of action that might be dictated by with the development of the organization and increasing the interests of the maintenance of peace and security. access to the border areas. Under this new strategy in­ , 12. The Secretary-General and the President, in reply stead of making use of probing operations to }Joints on to questions put by the representative of Lebanon, stated the frontier from the widely scattered outstations and that no communication had so far been received by them posts, permanent posts could now be established at or from the President of the Lebanese Chamber of Depu­ near the main road intersections with the frontier. f ties. In addition to increased air patrols, more extensive 13. The representative of Sweden noted that the new patrolling between those posts, on foot or by mule in r element to which reference was made to justify the pro­ areas where jeeps could not operate, was the next logical vision of military assistance by the United States to step. With the envisaged increase in the observer force Lebanon was events in another country. The implication and the addition of enlisted personnel, together with l would seem to be that something similar could happen supporting equipme~nt, direct and constant patrolling of in Lebanon. To the extent that the Council was con­ the actual frontier would be possible. fronted with a decision of a State to request assistance B. Submission of the complaint by Jordan from another State in order to stabilize an internal situ­ ation, that was not a question falling directly within the 18. In a letter dated 17 July 1958 (S/4053), ad­ jurisdiction of the United Nations. In that connexion, dressed to the President of the Security Council, the he referred to Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. permanent representative of Jordan requested the inclu­ On the other hand, it had been stated that the United sion, for urgent consideration, of the following item in States had acted in accordance with the principle ex­ the agenda of the Security Council: "Complaint by the pressed in the Charter on collective self-defence. It was Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of interference in its apparently considered that measures had been taken in domestic affairs by the United Arab Republic". accordance with Article 51 or at least in the spirit of that 19. At the 831st meeting on 17 July, the President Article. According to the Charter, measures of that kind suggested that the letter from the representative of came under the examination of the Council. One of the Jordan be discussed first. conditions for Article 51 to be applicable was that an 20. The representative of the Union of Soviet Social- armed attack had occurred against a Member State. The Swedish Government did not consider that that condi- sIbid., paras. 390-394. ..--_...... _------'----~~"'-~--,,'-' _....- ...... -_------_..-...... ----., ist Republics observed that it was difficult to iecide Xations Charter, had requested the Governments of the whether the Jordanian compl~int warranted ,!rgel~t con­ United Kingdom and the United States to come to its and the sideration, since no explanatlOn had been ~1Ven In ~he immediate aid. British troops had been landing on Jor­ United N letter from the representative of Jordan. HIS delegation dan territory since early that morning in a generous "RecaIJ did tl0t object to the inclusion of the item in the agenda, response to that request. Decembel but that fact should not in .any way be. construed to ~ean 22. The representative of the United Kingdom said Assembly o~ ~ecogmzed that it endorsed the wordmg of the Item that his Government had no doubt whatever of the threats 01 that the charges of Jordan against the Umted Arab preparation of a fresh att"mpt to overthrow the regime the freedl Republic \vere valid. Inclusion of the ite~ would enable in Jordan and to create internal disorder. In the light of or at fom the Security Council thoroughly to consl~er t~~ ques­ that knowledge, the movements of Syrian forces to­ the peoplt tion of the armed intervention of the Umted Kmgdom wards the northern frontier of Jordan had been ominous in Jordan. The Lebanese question and the ne~ item developments. The information available to his Govern­ uRecall might be discussed concurrently by the Counctl. ~he ment had been confirmed that day by the Baghdad radio, vember 1 situation in the Xear East was so grave and was deterl.o­ which had repeatedly declared that a revolution had Assembly rating so rapidly that the Council must try to save Its started in Iraq and one in Lebanon, and that on the internal time. follO\ving day another revolution would start in Jordan changing which would wipe out the monarchy. The appeal of the threat or Decision: The pro<';siollal agenda, in 'Which the letter 'whatever dated 22 Mav 1958 from the representative of Lebanon Government of Jordan for assistance from free Gov­ ernments in maintaining the country's independence was committe alld the ldter dated 1i July 1958 from the rcpresenta­ interest ti'l't' of Jordan jigurc.d as items 2 and was adopted, natural and entirely justified in the circumstances. The f, Government of Jordan had been entitled to make it gravest

meeting proved unable to exercise its primary respon­ of the Security Council speCifically and explicitly au­ sibility for the maintenance of international peace thorized him to do so. The draft resolution sought a

and security, strengthened United Nations Observation Group in ) "Decides to caU an emergency special session of Lebanon, which he was sure would meet adequately the General Assembly inorder to consider the question the needs of the situation. He submitted the following of the intervention of the United States of America revised text of that draft resolution (S/4055/Rev.l) : and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and "The Secttrity Council, Northern Ireland in Lebanon and Jordan." "Having further heard the charges of the repre­ 55. The representative of explClined that he sentative of Lebanon concerning interference by the had been forced to vote against the Swedish draft reso­ United Arab Republic in the internal affairs of lution because, in his delegation's view, the time was Lebanon and the reply of the representative of the one for strengthening rather than weakening the direct United Arab Republic, action of the United Nations in Lebanon. It believed "1. Requests the Secretary-General to make ar­ that it was a more profi~able approach to regard the rangements forthwith for such measures, in addition action of the United States as not inconsistent with the to those envisaged by the resolution of 11 June 1958, work of the Observation Grm.tp, an opinion reinforced as he may consider necessary in the light of the pres­ by the repeated assurances given by the United States ent circumstances, with a view to enabii.ng the United representative. Nations to fulfil the general purposes e.,tablished in 56. The representative of Lebanon expressed his that resolution, and which will, in acconlance with the Government's regret that the necessary assistance which Charter, serve to ensure the territorial integrity and it had requested of the Council to help it uphold the political independence of Lebanon, so as to make independence and integrity of Lebanon had not been possible the withdrawal of United States forces from granted because of the negative attitude of the USSR Lebanon; to the United States draft resolution, the adoption of "2. Requests the Secretary-General to report to which would have achieved that purpose. the Security Council on the arrangements made; 57. On 19 July, the following draft resolution was "3. Calls upon the Governments concerned to co­ submitted by Japan (S/4055) : operate fully in the implementation of the present "The Security Council, resolution." "Having further heard the charges of the repre­ 59. The representative of the United States said that sentative of Lebanon concerning interference by the the constructive proposal of the representative of Japan United Arab Republic in the internal affairs of represented the indispensable minimum action which Lebanon and the reply of the representative of the the United Nations should take in Lebanon at that time United Arab Republic, and could lead to conditions which would make possible "1. Invites the United Nations Observation Group the withdrawal of United States forces from Lebanon. in Lebanon to continue to develop its activities pur­ 60. The representative of the United Kingdum said suant to the Security Council resolution of 11 June that he would support the Japanese draft resolution 1958; under which the Secretary-General would be enabled, "2. Reqztests the Secretary-General to make ar­ doubtless in consultation with the Government of rangements forthwith for such measures, in addition Lebanon, to increase the effort of the United Nations to those envisaged by the resolution of 11 June 1958, in Lebanon and to extend its responsibility, with the as he may consider necessary in the light of the pres­ object of taking over in due course from the United ent circumstances, with a view to enabling the United States forces responsibility for ensuring the continued Nations to fulfil the general purposes established in integrity and independence of Lebanon. Turning to the that resolution, and which will, in accordance with complaint of Jordan, and to the way in which his Gov­ the Charter, serve to ensure the territorial integrity ernment proposed to follow up its statement of readi­ and political independence of Lebanon, so as to make ness to withdraw British forces from the territory of possible the withdrawal of United States forces from Jordan, if and when the United Nations could make Lebanon; effective arrangements for the protection of Jordan from external threat, that the United Kingdom pro­ "3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to posed, as a first step, to explore urgently with the the Security Council on the arrangements made; Secretary-General the possibility of such action by the "4. Calls ttpon the Governments concerned to co­ United Nations. That would be done in consultation operate fully in the implementation of the present with the Government of Jordan and with other Gov­ resolution." ernments concerned. The object of the consultations 58. At the 835th meeting on 21 July, the representa­ would be to work out proposals under which assistance tive of Japan stressed the heavy responsibility of the could be given by the United Nations to the Govern­ Council in the crisis confronting it. His delegation felt ment of Jordan to ensure the preservation of its terri­ that it was particularly important at such a time to torial integrity and political independence. develop an atmosphere in which the meeting of minds 61. The representative of Canada reiterated that the would be possible. The intention of the draft resolution Council should address itself not to the events of the submitted by his delegation was to uphold the United past but to the positive task of achieving- through the Nations and the principles and purposes of the Charter. United Nations the stability in the Middle East which It was not the intention to empower the Secretary­ was essential to a lasting solution. The Lebanese situa­ General to create a United Nations Emergency Force tion should be dealt with as it was and should be dealt in Lebanon nor to create a type of United Nations force with through the United Nations. The Japanese draft such as was stationed in Korea nor to create a police resolution, which sought to use and strengthen the force of any kind. Of course, the Secretary-General United Nations machinery which was in existence and could not perform such functions unless a resolution looked to a situation in which the United States forces 10 -- could be withdrawn from Lebanon, was a positive ap­ as antiCipate the successive withdrawal of the foreign ld explicitly au­ proach. It gave a role of key importance to the Secre­ troops. As for the precise nature of the steps to be )lution sought a tary-General for its successful implementation. taken, his delegation did not exclude the possibility of

'ation Group in ) 62. The Secretary-General, in response to a question continued and expanded activities of the Observation meet adequately from the representative of Canada as to how he envis­ Group as well as the dispatch of military United ed the following aged the implementation of the Japanese draft resolu­ Nations contingents, or both. It could therefore support Sj4055jRev.l) : • tion, said that he found it difficult to foresee that, if the Japanese draft resolution. ) the Observation Group operation were to be continued 65. The representative of the Union of Soviet Social­ es of the repre­ , and strengthened as envisaged in that proposal, the ist Republics, reviewing the development of the situa­ erference by the " Council would also find it acceptable to use other means, tion, emphasized that American and British troops in ~rnal affairs of and these of a military nature, for the very same end. Lebanon and Jordan were constantly being reinforced ~sentative of the The present planning for a development of the obser­ and that the armed forces of the United States and the r vation operation would seem to make the Obse:rvation United Kingdom were carrying out various other move­ Group itself a wholly adequate instrument, at the ments in the area. Feverish preparations of public opin­ ral to make ar­ border, for its intended purposes. In line with the plans ion were proceeding for the further broadening of ,ures, in addition f of the Group itself and with his own intentions, and military activities against the Arab peoples in the vicin­ of 11 June 1958, on the basis of the Council resolution of 11 June­ ity of Lebanon and Jordan. The United States note to light of the prcs­ I ) reinforced by the new decision of the Council should the United Arab Republic was in essence a threat to lbiing the United the Japanese draft resolution be adopted - he would take armed action against the latter. Such threats were ~s e,<;tablished in take immediate steps for the continued development of also addressed tc the Government of the young Iraqi :oruance with the the Group up to the maximum capacity rendered pos­ republic. However, those planning the danger of a new 'ial integrity and sible in the circumstances. In his view, a strengthened world war would fail. The USSR felt that it was possi­ so as to make and expanded Observation Group such as he had de­ ble and necessary to find a solution consistent with the :ates forces from scribed could meet adequately the responsibilities prop­ vital interests of the peoples of th Near and Middle erly falling upon the United Nations as indicated in East and which would ensure the observance of their ral to report to the Japanese draft resolution. It was his hope that that sovereign rights, taking into account the interests of all ments made; would equally be recognized by the parties concerned, States. The peoples of these countries did not deny the concerned to co­ thus providing the basis for the early withdrawal from interests of the Governments of the Western Powers l of the present Lebanon of United States forces. in the use of the oil and other resources of the area but wished only that relations be on a footing of equality 63. The representative of France felt that there was and on the basis of mutual interests. no reason why the Council could not adopt the Japanese i States said that 66. Turning to the Japanese draft resolution, he said ~ntative of Japan draft resolution. The United States troops sent to Lebanon on a provisional basis in no way detracted that it gave rise to many questions. In the first place Im action which it proposed not only to continue but also to expand the :mon at that time from the responsibility of the United Nations to act in ~.ctivities tld make possible that part of the world. The support given to the proposal of the Observation Group. Thus it ignored by the United States constituted further proof of that tully the new situation which had arisen after the intro­ s from Lebanon. duction of the United States forces which had come to :d Kingdum said country's good faith and of its constant respect for the decisions of the United Nations. Lebanon to intervene in the internal affairs of the draft resolution Lebanese people who were shortly to hold presidential ould be enabled, 64. The representative of Sweden said th~t the pro­ elections. Moreover, according to the Japanese proposal Government of posal submitted by his delegation which had led to the the Gr?~p ~as to ensure the territorial integrity and United Nations Council decision of 11 June had been based on a desire the pohttcal mdependence of Lebanon. But it was not ,ibility, with the to try to obtain an impartial exposition of the situation said who was threatening Lebanon. If the reference was :rom the United on the borders of Lebanon. His delegation had also to the United Arab Republic, as implied in the pre­ ng the continued hoped that the decision would lead to a general relaxa­ amble,. that was not consistei' with the reality, for the I. Turning to the tion of the tense situation in that country. Accordingly, ~ounctl had not made any such d.etermination and 1 which his Gov­ Sweden had been among the countries furnishing ob­ mdeed there was no basis for such a decision. He also tement of readi- servers and equipment. In the view of the Swedish noted that there was no indication in the proposal IJf the territory of Government the situation in Lebanon had been in the the nature of the additional steps to be taken by tht' ions could make process of being gradually stabilized. The landing of Secretary-General. The draft resolution said nothin ction of Jordan American troops had altered the conditions on which concer.ning the main point, namely the illegal presenc~ i Kingdom pro­ the activities of the observers had been based and the of Untted States forces for the purpose of intervening 'gently with the continued activities of the observers in that new situa­ in the domestic affairs of the Lebanese people. For the [ch action by the tion could, in his Government's opinion, have become United Nations to create conditions for the withdrawal ~ in consultation a political handicap to the United Nations. The pro­ of such interventionist forces meant that it would be­ with other Gov­ posal of his delegation that those activities be suspended come a participant in the intervention. Furthermore, he consultations until further notice had not meant that the Council there was no indication in the proposal as to when those which assistance should cease to pay attention to the situation or dis­ forces would be withdrawn, and it was clear that the ; to the Govern­ continue efforts to reach agreement on appropriate decision as to whether tt:e conditions were present for tion of its terri­ measures to serve the interests of peace and security withdrawal would be decided by the United States. The lce. in the area. The Swedish draft resolution had thus pro­ Security Council had already rejected a proposal for ~iterated that the vided that the Lebanese question should be kept on the the establishment of a United Nations international ae events of the Council's agenda. Operative paragraph 1 of the revised army. Therefore, his delegation could not support the ring- through the Japanese draft resolution provided a suitable starting­ Japanese draft resolution, although his delegation in no ddle East which point for the continued effort which should be made. way questioned the motives of the Japanese delegation. Lebanese situa­ It was the understanding of the Swedish delegation that 67. The Soviet Government, he continued, had pro­ l should be dealt the plans which the Secretary-General was requested posed a meeting of the Heads of Government with the ~ Japanese draft to work out should involve concrete measures on the participation of the Secretary-General, which could strengthen the part of the United Nations to protect the territorial make concrete recommendations to the Council for in existence and integrity and political independence of Lebanon as well stopping the armed conflict in the Middle East. That :ed States forces 1'1 was the way to extinguish the flames of an incipient tbrougb.out the world. Unfortunately, the Government conflict. But there was another way if the Council, as of Jordan continued to speak of the "liberation" of the past week seemed to indicat~, was unable to devise Iraq. Any attempt of that kind could lead to a general fire-fighting measures on its own initiative. The General conflagration. Assembly could act to devise such meaSures at a special 72. The representative of Panama noted that the session to deal with the question of the United States Japanese draft resolution completed and strengthened and the United Kingdom intervention in the internal the provisions of the Council's resolution of 11 June. affairs of Lebanon and Jordan. It represented an ....ttempt to make every possible effort 68. The representative of China, expressing doubts to achieve a solution through the Security Council ,t as to the adequacy of the Japanese draft resolution, which was the orig:in of the United Nations bearing the emphasized that the Council must give careful consid­ principal respons;.bility for maintaining international eration to the judgement in that respect of the Govern­ peace and security. He would vote in favour of that ment of Lebanon. proposal. 73. At the 836th meeting on 22 July, the representative 69. The representative of Canada said that every 1 opportunity should be explored to discuss the causes of Lebanon said that his Government, although it had of tension in the interest of heading off the possibility doubts concerning the effectiveness of the action called of war. In view of recent dpvelopments in the Middle for in the Japanese draft resolution in coping with the East, the problem of that region should be discussed at situation as it existed. ill Lebanon, considered that text the highest level as soon as possible. In the interest of an improvement over the original one adopted by the assuring that the international temperature was not Council on 11 June in that, while providing for the increased his Government would expect that the status necessary measures to achieve the general purposes of quo be maintained in tbe region of the Middle East and the resolution of 11 June, it also envisaged the necessary would welcome from all countries concerned assurances measures to assure the territorial integrity and political such as those given by the Prime Minister of the United independence of Lebanon. Since that proposal gave Kingdom on 17 July. great latitude to the Secretary-General, his delegation ) 70. The representative of Lebanon communicated to hoped that the Secretary-General would be in a position the Council excerpts from a statement made on 18 July to use any method allowed to him under the Charter by the Lebanese Commission in charge of relations with to achieve those goals. His Government would not be the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon con­ prepared to abandon the application of Article 51 nor cerning interference by the United Arab Republic in to deprive itself of assistance from friendly countries the internal affairs of Lebanon. Since the adoption of unless the action taken by the United Nations was ade­ the Council resolution of 11 June, large-~cale infiltra­ quate to achieve the goals stated in the resolution. tion of men, arms and ammunition had continued 74. The representative of the Union of Soviet Social­ unabated from Syria towards rebel districts. After re­ ist Republics said that the adoption by the Council of viewing numerous specific instances, he listed the gen­ a solution like the one suggested by the delegation of , eral observations made by the Commission of liaison, Japan would enab~e the Western Powers to obtain the ") in which it was stated that the Lebanese Government sanction of the Security Council and the United Nations felt that various obstacles encountered by the observers for their occupation of Lebanon and Jordan and also 11 had prevented them from carrying out their mission in for the preparation of the occupation of other countries, i an effective and satisfactory manner in accordance with in particular of Iraq. He submitted the following amend­ the Council's resolution. The Lebanese Government ments (S/4063) to the Japanese draft resolution: could authoritatively state, based on reliable informa­ "1. Restore operative paragraph 1 as set forth in ',..•.. tion, that interference by the United Arab Republic in document S/4055. the internal affairs of Lebanon had not stopped at any "2. Renumber operative paragraph 1 of the revised time, that the continued attacks by the Egyptian and Japanese draft resolution paragraph 2, and redraft .~ Syrian Press and the State-controlled radio had not it as follows: .~ abated their vilifying of the Lebanese Government and "'2. Requests the Secretary-General to carry their encouraging and supporting armed subversive ac­ out, in addition to the measures envisaged by the I tivities by the Lebanese rebels and their Syrian and resolution of 11 June 1958, the plan submitted by Egyptian partners on Lebanese territory. the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon 71. The representative of the United Arab Republic in its second report, with a view to enabling the I said that there was nothing new in the accusations made United Nations to fulfil the general purposes estab­ by the representative of Lebanon which were based on lished in that resolution, which will, in accordance i information from the intelligence services of Lebanon with the Charter, serve to ensure the territorial and were not supported by any proof. The true motive integrity and political independence of Lebanon'. which led the Lebanese delegation to attempt to prolong "3. Add a new paragraph 3 as follows: the debate was the fact that the Lebanese Government wished to justify before Lebanese and world public " '3. Considering that the landing of United opinion that the landings of American forces had been States troops in Lebanon constitutes intervention at their request. The Lebanese Government knew the in the domestic affairs of that country and Is there­ unfavourable reaction in Lebanon to the position of fore contrary to the purposes and principles of the President Chamoun, even among the latter's partisans. United Nations, calls upon the United States of Many had pronounced themselves against the grave America to withdraw its armed forces from ~eba­ decision taken by him. The inhabitants of Lebanon were non immediately'. not at all pleased by the presence of United States "4. Renumber paragraph 2 of the revised Japanese forces. The true motive for the intervention was the draft resolution paragraph 4, and add at the end of revolution in Iraq, without which there would pr'obably the paragraph the words 'not later than 30 July 1958'. have been no landings even if Mr. Chamoun had asked "5. Renumber paragraph 3 of the revis-::d Japanese for them. The umed intervention had been ,:ondemned draft resolution paragraph 5." 12 '~:"'--""".,~. At the 837th meeting on 22 July, the representa- main passive in the face of such an emergency. Another c?,e. Gov~rm;;ent tive of the United Kingdom, pointing out that the factor was that the Parliament of Lebanon was to elec~ hberatlOn of Japanese draft resolution was in effect a compromise a new President at the end of the week. The selection ~ad to a general in that it had been carefully drafted to take into account of a new President, which might be the result of a the views expressed by the USSR representative, op­ patriotic agreement between the Government Party and noted that the posed the USSR amendments which would amount to the Opposition, would certainly clarify to a great extent Id strengthened a restoration of the central thought in the USSR draft that difficult and complex situation. The third point was ion of 11 June. resolution which had been rejected by an overwhelm­ that the President of the Council of Ministers of the Vpossible effort ing majority of the Council. The amendments also Soviet Union had invited various Heads of State to ecurity Council sought to circumscribe the efforts which the Secretary­ meet with llim and the Secretary-General to seek a solu­ ,• ions bearing the General would be making with a view to ensuring the tion that could be recommended to the Council. Several 19 international territoral integrity and political independence of Leba­ replies had already been made known. Finally, the favour of that non. United States and USSR delegations had presented Decision: The USSR amendments (Sj4063) to the similar proposals calling for the convening of a special emergency session of the General Assembly. He con­ erepresentative } revised Japanese draft resolution were rejected by 8 although it had votes to 1 (USSR) with 2 abstentions (Japan, Sweden). cluded that the United Nations must continue to act ile action called effectively in the Middle East and appealed to all peo­ :oping with the Decision: The revised Japanese draft resolution ples, especially those concerned in the CUL. 'ict in the (S/40SSIRev.l) received 10 votes in favour to 1 .dered that text ) Middle East, in the hope that nothing would be done adopted by the against (USSR). Tit.! negative vote being that of a to worsen the complex situation in that part of the Ividing- for the pennanent member of the Council, the draft resolution world. He proposed the adjournment of the meeting in ral purposes of was not adopted. accordance with rule 33 of the provisional ntles of cl the necessary 76. The Secretary-General said that although the procedure. ty and political Council had failed to take additional action in the grave 78. The representative of the Union of Soviet Social­ proposal gave emergency facing it, the responsibility of the United ist Republics felt that for the Council to adjourn as Nations to make all efforts to live up to the purpose:> his delegation ) proposed would put it in a difficult position. It had be in a position and principles of the Charter remained. Whatever the before it a concrete proposal as to how the United er the Charter outcome of the further consideration in the Council, Nations should act now that the Council had proved t would not be there was need for practical steps to be taken without itself unable to perform its functions. Noting that the Article 51 nor any delay. In that connexion, he recalled his statement President had referred to the forthcoming presidential ~ndly countries to the Council on 31 to the effect that the elections in Lebanon, he pointed out that they would be ttions was ade­ discretion and impartiality imposed on the Secretary­ held in the presence of foreign troops. That aspect of esolution. General by the character of his immediate task must not the case should prompt the Council to act decisively. ~ Soviet Social­ degenerate into a policy of expediency, as well as his Moreover, the USSR proposal for a meeting of the the Council of statement of 26 September 1957 to the General Assem­ Heads of Government of various States, with the par­ ~ delegation of blv that he believed it to be the duty of the Secretary­ ticipation of the Secretary-General, far from being s to obtain the General to use his office and, indeed, the machinery of designed to impede the action of the United Nations, Jnited Nations the Organization to its utmost capacity and to the full was designed to accelerate a solution which would sat­ >rdan and also extent permitted at each stage by practical circum­ isfy the national interests of the peoples of the Near lthel' countries, stances and that it was in keeping with the philosophy and Middle East and would lead to eliminating the llowingamend­ of the Charter that the Secretary-General also should threat which weighed heavily on the whole world. The resolution: be expected to act without any guidance from the negative votes of the United States and the United Assembly or the Council should that appear to him s set forth in Kingdom on the USSR amendments to the Japanese necessary towards helping to fill any vacuum that might draft resolution had macte the Council impotent to act appear in the systems which the Charter and traditional as its responsibilities called upon it to act under the . of the revised diplumacy provided for the safeguarding of peace and Charter.The peoples of the world expected the Council to 2, and redraft security. He felt that, in the circumstances, what he had consider the proposals before it and take action on them. stated on those occasions now had full application. He 79. The representative of Lebanon expressed his ~ral to carry was sure that he would be acting in accordance with Government's regret that the efforts of the Council had ~isaged by the the wishes of the members of the Council if he there­ not led to a positive and concrete result which would 1 submitted by fore used all opportunities offered to him, within the assist hh: Government in overcoming and dispelling the up in Lebanon limits set by the Charter and towards developing the threat to its independence and integrity. He also re­ ) enabling the United Nations effort, so as to help prevent a further gretted the references made to the presidential t:lections lurposes estab­ deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and in Lebanon, a question which was a domestic concern in accordance to assist in finding a road away from the dangerous of his country. the territorial point at which they now found themselves. The con­ of Lebanon'. tinued operation of the Observation Group being ac­ Decision: The President's proposal to adjourn the meeting under rule 33 of the provisional rules of pro­ N'S: ceptable to all members of the Council, that would mean the further development of the Group so as to give it cedure was adopted by 10 votes to 1 (USSR). 19 of United all the significance it could have, consistent with its basic s intervention character as determined by the Council resolution of C. Security Council resolution of 7 August 1958 Vand is there­ 11 June and the purposes and principles of the Charter. 80. On 30 July, the United Nations Observation I inciples of the The Council would of course be kept fully informed on Group in Lebanon submitted, through the Secretary­ ited States of the steps taken. Were its members to disapprove of the es from J..eba- General, its second report to the Security Council way those intentions were translated into practical (S/4069), covering its activities and observations from steps, he would of course accept the consequences of 2 to 15 July. In the report, it was stated that the impact rised Japanese their judgement. of the landing of United States armed forces in the at the end of 77. The President said that the Council must con­ area on 15 July on the inhabitants of opposition­ I 30 July 1958'. sider four fundamental points. The Secretary-General held areas where observers were operating had occa­ ris-=:d Japanese had established that the United Nations could not re- sioned difficulties and caused setbacks to the task of observation. The efforts of the Group to solve the new the United States Government, which had invented United States and f p!"oblems were meeting with some success. The Group various pretexts to prevent the meeting. Meanwhile, the USSR had twice prc stated that it had received no reports from its observers United States and the United Kingdom were increasing helping to maintain J subsequent to 15 July which would tend to alter the their forces in Lebanon and Jordan and other forces rity. Fortunately, tht ~eneral nature of its t:valuations it had made in that were bt'ing deployed in the area. Thus the world had not it was important th~ report. In the conclusion to the report, it was stated been freed of the threat of a still greater deterioration. delay, had promptly that the infiltration whieh might be taking place could .\ttempts had been made to justify the incursion of of United Nations a not be on anything more than a limited scale and was Anglo-American troops into the Arab countries by ref­ General's statement largely confined to small arms and ammunition. In con­ erence to the recent events in Iraq. All knew, however, tance and had receh ditions of civil l'ontlkt; when the frontier was open and that those events, like those in Lebanon, had been States. Taking into unguarded pral'tieally .hroughout its length, some strictly of a dome"'tic nature and had been the expres­ President of the Sec movement of that kind might well be expectt·d. As sion of the cmger of the peoples of the Arab countries letters concerning hi regards the question of the illegal infiltration of per­ against the regimes foisted upon them by the foreign had refrained at th( sonnel, the nature of the frontier, the existence of tra­ imperi;>listic colonialists. The tadies of obstruction used its request for an ditional tribal and other bonds on both sides of it, the by the Cnited States and the United Kingdom against General Assembly, he free movement of produce in both directions, wer~ the Republic of Iraq in the Security Council and the gence. At one point i among the factors which must be taken into account in attempts to lower an iron curtain around Iraq had failed again recognized th making an evaluation. Tn no case, however, had United dismally. The attempts of the United Sta~es and the Council and had be Nations observers who had been vigilantly patrolling Cnited Kingdom to justify their adion by alluding to meeting in the Coun the oppositionhdd areas and had frequently observed the sO-l'alled intervention of the Cnited Arab Republic changed his mind f the armed bands there, been able to detect the presence had been demolished by the two reports of the Obser­ , , Soviet Union had ag .~ of persons who had indubitably entered from across the vation Group, tc'e se'.:l)nd of which clearly stated that cil, which was prev border for the purpose of fighting. From the observa­ the landing of United States troops in Lebanon had Soviet Union and i~ tiDns r..ade of the arms and organization obtaining in impeded the work of the Group. General Assembly. I'1'1 the opposition-held areas, the hghting strength of oppo­ 86. The demands of the peoples for the immediate !:I' 88. The United St ,I sition elements was not sUl'h as to be able successfully calling of a meeting of the Heads of Governments, he to cope \vith hostilities against a well ar~ned regular continued, and the determination of peace-loving States because of the USS mind, the Council COt military force. to put an end to the armed intervention in Lebanon and sibilities. The argu 81. In a letter dated 5 August (5/4078), the repre­ Jordan and to aggression in the Kear and Middle East, had compelled the authors of that intervention to re­ acceptable forum be sentative of the enion of Soviet Socialist Republics a mechanical majori reque~ted the President of the Security Council to call frain at that stage from an extension of the aggression to other countries, in particular the Republic of Iraq insulted the dignity an immediate emergency meeting of the Council to con­ requested a prompt sider the USSR draft resolution (5/4057). and the United Arab Republic. However, the formal recognition by the v".,restern Powers of the Republic of draft resolution, wh 82. In a letter dated 5 August (5/4081) from the USSR draft resolut permanent delegation of Iraq addressed to the Secre­ Iraq did not mean that the danger of the extension of the conflict had been fully eliminated at that time and declared that the tnl tary-General, 1\lr. Abbas said that with the declaration the United States, t:, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on the termina­ that the security ~f Iraq and other Arab countries had been assured. The presence of foreign troops in Leba­ maintain the indepe tion of the Arab Union as from 1 August 1958, his mis­ tions. The United N; sion as permanent representative of Iraq, accredited non and Jordan constituted a permanent threat to peace and security and was a flagrant violation of the Charter. United States forces as such by the Government of the Arab Union, was different ways, mad ended. The USSR therefore demanded an emergency special session of the General Assembly to consider the ques­ improving the situa 83. On 6 August, the Secretary-General submitted a democratic elections report (S/4080) to the Council concerning the creden­ tion of the withdrawal of United States troops from Lebanon and of United Kingdom troops from Jordan. USSR representative tials of the representative of Iraq, in which, after was also the added p stating that he had been officially notified by the Gov­ He introduced the following revised text of the USSR draft resolution (S/4057/Rev.l) : Group and of the Un ernment of Jordan that it considered the Constitution materially mitigated of the Arab Union as in abeyance and inapplicable, he "The Security Council, infiltration. The repo referred to the letter dated 15 July 1958 from the Min­ "Having considered the situation in the Near and basically of an inter ister for Foreign Affairs of the Government of Iraq Middle East resulting from the introduction of United the particularly dang (S/4060, section 3) appointing Mr. Hashim Jawad as States armed forces into Lebanon and of United King­ represented by violel the Iraqi representative on the Council. In his opinion, dom armed forces into Jordan, abroad. He introduce those credentials were in order. "Taking into aaount that these actions of the United States draft r( 84. In a letter dated 7 August (S/4082), addressed United States of America and the United Kingdom of "The Security C to the President of the Security Council, the represen­ Great Britain and Northern Ireland constitute a threat tative of Jordan listed details of various incidents in to international peace and security, "Having considl Jordan between 10 and 3D July 1958. "Noting that the Security Council has proved and of the Hashe 85. At the 838th meeting of the Council on 7 August, unable to exercise its primary responsibility for the "Taking into acc the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Re­ maintenance of international peace and security, its permanent mem publics declared that the Council, as a consequence of "Decides to call an emergency special session of the ings 0 f the Council its present membership and the policies which were General Assembly in order to consider the question of its primary respOl engaged in by the United States disrupting its effec­ the immediate withdrawal of United States troops from international peace tiveness as an instrument of peace, had been incapable Letanon and of United Kingdom troops from Jordan." "Decides to call of adopting the measures that would lead to the imme­ 87. The representative of the United States chal­ the General Asset diate end of aggression and the withdrawal of American lenged the USSR representative's account of events in resolution 377(V). and British troops from Lebanon and Jordan. The the Middle East and in the Security Council, reiterating 89. The represent Government of the Soviet Union had accordingly called that the troops of the United States had been sent to viewin[T his Governm for an urgent meeting of the Heads of v,uious Govern­ Lebanon at the express request of the Government of meeting of the Coun ments, with the participation of the Secretary-General. Lebanon to assist that country to retain its territorial expressed regret tha That proposal, however, had not fitted into the plans of integrity and political independence. By vetoing the had previously agree i; 14 l I Ld invented United States and the Japanese draft resolutions, the cil, now rejected the idea. The USSR criticisms of the lnwhile, the USSR had twice prevented the Security Council from Security Council could find no justification in fact or e increasing helping to maintain Lebanon's independence and integ­ practice. The composition of the Council was deter­ Ither forces rity. Fortunately, the Secretary-General, realizing that mined not by the wishes of anyone State or group of )rld had not it was important that practical steps be taken without States, but by the provisions of Altlcle 23 of the Char­ ~terioration. delay, had promptly begun to increase the effectiveness ter. The USSR was proposing in effect to disregard a lcursion of of United Nations action in Lebanon. The Secretary­ legally constituted organ of the United Nations merely ries bv ref­ General's statement had been an event of great impor­ on the grounds that it did not agree with the political 1;, hO\\'ever, tance and had received the full support of the United views which it supposed the members of that organ to , had been States. Taking into account the appeal made by the hold. It appeared to have ignored the efforts made con­ the expres­ President of the Security Council and the exchange of sistently by the United Kingdom Government during ,b countries letters concerning high level meetings, the linited States the recent exchanges to reassure the USSR that the the foreign had refrained at the previous meeting from pressing object of the special meeting of the Council would be uction used its request for an emergency special s~ssion of the to reach fruitful agreements rather than register dif­ lom against General Assembly, hoping for an end to SO\·iet intransi­ ferences by votes. Icil and the gence. At one point it had appeared that the USSR had :j had failed again recognized the responsibility of the Security 90. The USSR now asked, he continued, for the con­ :es and the Council and had been prepared to attend a high-level vening of an emergency special session of the Assembly alluding to meeting in the Council. Mr. Khrushchev, however, had to discuss the question of the withdrawal of United lb Republic changed his mind following his trip to Peking. The States forces from Lebanon and United Kingdom the Obser­ Soviet Union had again denounced the Security Coun­ forces from Jordan. The assumption behind that re­ stated that cil, which was prevented from acting solely by the quest was the same as the one behind the USSR draft ~banon had Soviet Union and had requested a meeting of the resolution which had been decisively rejected by the General Assembly. Council, namely that the United Kingdom and the immediate United States had in some way been guilty of aggres­ 88. The United States had regretfully concluded that sion when they had responded to the appeals of the 'nments, he because of the USSR's recent and arbitrary change of ving States Governments of Jordan and Lebanon for assistance. mind, the Council could not continue to fulfil its respon­ There was clearly a vital difference of principle between ebanon and sibilities. The argument that the Council was not an iddle East, his Government and that of the USSR regarding the acceptable forum because in it the United States had method by which change in the Middle East was to be tion to re­ a mechanical majority could not be sustained and it aggression achieved. If the legitimate Government of a country insulted the dignity of all members of the Council. He believed that it was faced by a danger to its very exist­ lic of Iraq requested a prompt vote on the revised United States the formal ence by the use against it of techniques of interference ~epublic draft resolution, which clearly had priority over the short of direct armed aggression, it had in international of USSR draft resolution. Dealing with the latter, he (tension of law the right to ask assistance from its friends, and such declared that the true Soviet aim was, by condemning an appeal and the response to it was in conformity with ,t time and the United States, to peevent constructive effort to mtries had the Charter. It was that right which the Government of maintain the independence and integrity of small na­ Jordan had exercised and which the USSR sought to )S in Leba­ tions. The United Nations Observation Group and the deny. He wondered how many Members of the United ~at to peace United States forces in Lebanon had both, though in Nations would be prepared on calm reflection to deny ile Charter. different ways, made valuable c0ntributions towards ncy special themselves the right to make the same appeal or to improving the situation in Lebanon where peaceful, respond to an appeal made by their friends. The United r the ques­ democratic elections had been held, something which the 'oops from Kingdom was not opposed to a discussion in the Gen­ USSR representative had regarded as impossible. There eral Assembly of the situation in Lebanon and Jordan )m Jordan. was also the added probability that the presence of the the USSR provided that that was arranged in a way which did not Group and of the United States forces might have very prejudge the issue. His Goyernment had instructed him materially mitigated the dangernus effects of illegal to ask the United States delegation to revise its draft infiltration. The reports of the Observation Group were resolutic n so as to bring the Jordanian complaint within : Near and basically of an interim nature, and did not deal with the scope of the proposed emergency special session. of United the particularly dangerous form of indirect aggression tited King- represented by violence stimulated and directed from 91. The representative of Iraq said that the Lebanese abroad. He introduced the following revised text of the complaint had been dealt with in the Council's resolu­ tion as well as in the reports of the Observation Group, illS of the United States draft resolution (S/4056/Rev.l) : which showed that the charges against the United Arab .ingdom of "The Security Council, te a threat Republic could not be substantiated. The question had "Having considered the complaints of Lebanon taken a completely new turn since the landing of the and of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, American armed forces in Lebanon in contradiction to as proved "Taking into account that the lack of unanimity of the 11 June resolution as well as to the Charter. The ty for the crisis had been further aggravated by the simultaneous rity, its permanent members at the 834th and 837th meet­ ings of the Council has prevented it from exercising introduction of armed forces of the United Kingdom sion of the into Jordan. The situation remained a threat to inter­ luestion of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, national peace and security and the Council had so far 'oops from been unable to lay down the basis for its solution. It n Jordan." "Decides to call an emergency special session of was not proposed to make use of the machinery pro­ tates chal­ the General Assembly, as provided in Assembly vided for by General Assembly resolution 377 (V) : events in resolution 377(V) ." and he hoped that that would prove as effective as on reiterating 89. The representative of the United Kingdom, re­ a previous occasion when Egypt had been the target of en sent to viewint>" his Government's attempts to secure a periodic aggression. It was essential that the emergency special rnment of meeting of the Council under Article 28, paragraph 2, session of the Assembly should deal primarily with the territorial expressed regret that the USSR Government, which introduction of United States and United Kingdom ~toing the had previously agreed to a special meeting of the Coun- forces into Lebanon and Jordan with a view to finding 15 I .,. a rapid and approrriate solution to the situation thus the competent organ, namely-the Security Council,-to created. Since the c0mplaints of Lebanon and Jordan find a solution and not to frustrate the hopes of those had in effect been proved without subs~ance, there was who had appealed to it. If, unfortunately, the Council no valid purpose to be served by their discussion in the were unable to act, and in that case only, the French Assembly. His delegation, therefore, could not suppo:t Government would agree to participaie in a conference the United States draft resolution in its existing form of Heads of Government of the principal Powers con­ although it agreed with its purposes regarding the con­ cerned on the question of the Middle East, provided vening of an emergency special session. that that conference had been carefully prepared and \Vas held in an objective and calm atmosphere. That 92. The representative of Canada said that his dele­ attitude remained unchanged. The USSR Government, gation deeply regretted that it had not proved possible which had previously supported the formula of a spe­ for the Council to advance in the direction of a special cial session of the Security Council, now called for an meeting of the Council owing to the position adopted emergency special session of the General Assembly. by the USSR Government. Although he felt that the The French Government, while still convinced that a Ccuncil had not come to the end of its capacity for meeting of the Heads of Governments on the question making a fruitful contribution to the substance of the of the Middle East was consonant with the interests of questions before it, for the moment they must seek an the world community, and that no efforts should be alternative way of finding a medium for discussion in spared to strive to bring about the necessary conditions the United Nations which would diminish the tensions for such a meeting of the Council, would not oppose the in the Middle East. His delegation supported the convening of a special session of the Assembly if that United States draft resolution and the statement of the was the wish of the members of the Council. President of the United States that the intention was to discuss the general problems of the Middle East with 97. As a loesult of discussion on the wording of the their underlying causes. United States draft resolution, the representative of the United States introduced the following revised text 93. The representative of Lebanon said that his Gov­ (S/4083) : ernment and people resented and protested the USSR "The Security Council, representati.....e's reference to the Government of Leba­ non as one imposed upon it by the colonial Powers. His "Having considered items 2 and 3 on its agenda as people eIijoyed their freedom and independence in a contained in document S/Agenda/838, manner which made them wish that many other peoples "Taking into account that the lack of unanimity of in other countries, including big countries, might enjoy its permanent members at the 834th and 837th meet­ the same freedom and might elect their governments as ings of the Security Council has prevented it from freely. Dealing with the USSR representative's refer­ exercising its primary responsibility for the mainte­ ence to the second report of the Observation Group, he nance of international peace and security, emphasized that, as the report itself made plain, that "Decides to call an emergency special session of document must be read as a whole. The report indicated the General Assembly." clearly that in the main areas held by the rebels, free Decision: The United States draft resolution movement of the observers had not so far been possible. (S/4083), as modified, was adopted unanimously. The report thus could not add anything to the conclu­ sions of the first report. 98. The representative of Japan expressed the hope that the General Assembly would find means to effect a 94. The representative of the United Arab Republic permanent settlement which would assure stability and associated himself with the statement made by the rep­ peace in the Middle East and would have due regard resentative of Iraq. The preamble of the United States for the sound nationalistic aspirations of the peoples draft resolution mentioned the complaints of Lebanon concerned. He added that the session would also help and Jordan but ignored the fact that those complaints create the conditions conducive to the withdrawal of had not been confirmed. It followed from the conclusion United States and British troops from the area. He of the second report of the Observation Group that further stated that as the discussion of Jordan had not there was nothing involving the responsibility of the been exhausted in the Security Council, the question of United Arab Republic. The new situation which had Jordan, from a procedural viewpoint, did not have the arisen because of the landing of foreign troops in that same status as the question of Lebanon. Accordingly, part of the world should be dealt with by the Assembly he accepted the amended United States draft resolution at length because it might constitute a threat to the with the understanding that this should not constitute peace and security in that area. a precedent for the future. 95. The representative. of the Union of Soviet Social­ ist Republics, reiterating the position of his delegation, D. Further reports of the United Nations Observa. emphasized that it was the presence of the United tion Group in Lebanon and withdrawFl of the States forces in Lebanon which had created the perilous Group situation in the Near and Middle East. That was wh:; 99. On 14 August, the third report (S/4085) of the the USSR draft resolution made it clear that the pur­ United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon was pose of the special session of the Assembly was to deal submitted to the Council through the Secretary-Gen­ with the question of the immediate withdrawal of those eral. In this report, the Group reproduced the text 0 f troops. On the other hand, the United States draft reso­ an announcement made by it on 16 July to the effect, lution gave no indication of the purpose for which the inter alia, that it alone was in Lebanon in pursuance of special session was to be convened. the mandate contained in the Security Council resolu­ 96. In the course of further discus"ion, the Presi­ tion of 11 June and that it represented the only action dent, speaking as the representative of France, said that taken by the Council. By dint of their perseverance and his delegation had associated itself with all proposals tact in dealing with difficult and often dangerous situa­ designed to provide a constructive solution to the prob­ tions, the observers had won back the ground lost after lems before the Council. It considered that it was for 15 July. Most of the permanent stations in opposition- 16 I .,..~~...~~~r-\-.i-"""'~'~~~~""-i'pft'j ~curity Council, to the hopes of those held areas envisaged in the Group's second interim Government was in proctss of extending its authority nately, the Council report had already been established ~ only, and other stations over the whole country. In view of th". absence for thc French were expected to be established shortly. The some time lec in a confcrence election of any reports of infiltration of personnel or of General Chehab as the next President of Lebanon smuggling of arms and of lcipal Powers con- had the recent marked improve­ taken place on 31 July. During the period immedi- ment in the general security situation :lIe East, provided ately preceding in Lebanon and in the election, there had been a noticeable the relations between Lebanon and its eastern neighbour, :ully prepared and reduction in tension practically throughout the atmosphere. the country Group had come to the conclusion that its task That and a comparative absence of armed clashes between under the SSR 11 June resolution of the Council might I10W Government, Government and opposition forces. Since 31 be regarded formula of July there as completed and recommended that the a spe- had been a virtual nation-wide truce with only occa- withdrawal now called for an of the United Nations Observation Group sional reports of sporadic firing in some areas. in Lebanon should be ::ienera,t undertaken. As,embly. 100. In its fourth report (S/4100) circt11 1 convmced tha~ ated on 103. In a letter dated 17 November 1958 (S/4115), a 29 September 1958, and covering the activities of ~ts on t~e questlOn the addressed to the President of the Security Council, the Group from 11 August to 20 September, the Group Secretary-General lth the mterests of stated referred both to the letter from the that, during the period under review, military Minister for Foreign efforts shou~q be observers had not Affairs ot Lebanon and to the ~cessary only been able to re-establish confi- recommendation of the Observation condltlOns dence in the independent nature Group and stated of their activities, but that he had instructed the Group to present, mId not opp<;>se the had won for themselves the trust and in consul­ ~ Ass~mbly understanding of tation with the Government of Lebanon, a detailed If that all sections of the population among whom they plan ~ouncl1. worked. for the withdrawal. He had taken that step under the Despite the presence of a considerable number of men authorization he wording of the under given to him in the Council resolution of arms, thef'e had been no significant clashes be- 11 June. The instruction presentative of the tween the Lebanese he had given to the Observa­ armed forces and ooganized oppo- tion Group implied that he considered wing revised text sition forces. No cases of infiltration its task as com­ had been detected, pleted and that his remaining duty. under the resolution and if any infiltration was still taking place its extent thus covered only must the necessary measures for the liqui­ be regarded as insignificant. dation of the operation. 3 on its agenda as 101. In a letter dated 16 Novem.ber 1958 (S/4113), 104. On 21 November 1958, the 1838, addressed to the President of the Security Secretary-General Council, the submitted a report (S/4116) on a plan for withdrawal ck of unanimity of Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lebanon said that the formulated :h and Security by the Observation Group, which was ac­ 837th meet­ Council would be pleased to learn that cordial ceptable to the prevented it and close relations Government of Lebanon, and stated that from between Lebanon and the United it had his approval. ty for the mainte­ Arab Republic had resumed their normal course. Con­ ecurity, scious of the higher interests of the Lebanese people E. Removal special and the need to safeguard peace of the Lebanese complaint from the session 0 f and security in the list of maUers area, and in the spirit which had led to the unanimous of which the Security Council is adoption of the decision seized draft resolution taken by the General Assembly at its third emergency special session unanimously. on 21 August, his 105. At the 840th meeting of the Security Government intended in the future to strengthen Council ~xpressed still on 25 November 1958, the President, having referred the hope further its co-operation with the United Arab Republic :l means to effect to documents S/4113, /4114 and S/4115 (see para­ a and other Arab States. For that reason, and in order to ssure stability and graphs 101 to 103 above), indicated that he had en­ dispel any misunderstanding which might hamper the gaged in i have due regard development consultations with the members of the Council, of such relations, the Lebanese Govern­ and that they illS of the peoples ment requested appeared agreeeable to a decision being the Council to delete the Lebanese com­ taken to delete the III would also help plaint of 22 May complaint submitted to the Council 1958 from the list of matters before it on 22 May 1958 by the withdrawal of and to ask the Secretary-General the Government of Lebanon to communicate its (S/4007) from the list of matters ram the area. He decision to the General Assembly. of which the Council of Jordan had not was seized. If he heard no objection, he would place cil, the question of 102. In its fifth report (S/4114), circulated on 17 en the record that the Council had so agreed. :, did not have November, the Observation Group stated that the Decision: the evacuation The Council agreed without objection to mono Accordingly, of United States troops from Lebanon had delete the complaint been completed submitted to it on 22 May 1958 by es draft resolution without incident on 25 October. Organ­ the Government of Lebanon ized opposition forces (S/4007) from the list of mId not constitute had been disbanded and the matters of which it was seized.

Nations Observa· nthdrawFI of the t (S/4085) of the in Lebanon was le Secretary-Gen­ lduced the text of July to the effect, III in pursuance of ty Council resolu­ ed the only action . perseverance and 1 dangerous situa­ ~ ground lost after ons in opposition-

17 I m C Q Chapter 2 A THE PALESTINE QUESTION

A. Complaint by Israel against the United Arab Council t~lOse bombardments might be repeated, with Republic concerning an incident of 3 December reperCUSSlOtlS far beyond those which had attended the 1958 in the Huleh area bombardment of 3 December. The United Arab Re­ public authorities seemed to have convinced themselves 106. In a letter dated 4 December 1958 (S/4123), that they might be able in the future to utilize an ad­ the representative of Israel requested the President of vantage of geography with impunity in order to inflict the Security Council to convene an urgent meeting of injury upon his people and territory while they them­ se the Council to consider a grave act of aggression com­ selves were immune from response. It was vitally ur­ th mitted on 3 December 1958 by the armed forces of the gent for the Council to impress the United Arab Re­ se United Arab Republic against Israel territory in the public with the gravity of that position. It was his duty th Huleh area in north-east Galilee. to inform the United Arab Republic that the bombard­ o 107. At its 8+1st meeting on 8 December 1958, the ment of Israel villages by Syrian artillery must be re­ sit Council included the Israel complaint in its agenda and garded as an act of war. In conclusion, he stated that co invited the representatives of Israel and the United faced by acts the continuance and repetition of which an Arab Republic to take places at the Council table. would threaten international peace and security, his WI Government, strongly desiring the maintenance and na 108. The representative of Israel said that the Syrian SI army post at Darbashiya and other military positions in strengthening of peace in the Middle East, turned to that area had opened fire on 3 December, first on Israel the Security Council to ensure an immediate end to shepherds grazing their herds south of Gonen, and such aggressive acts. of then on a security patrol which had come to their rescue. 110. The representative of the United Arab Republic pu The engagement had taken place on Israel territory in noted, among other things, that it was not the first time til the area to which the demilitarization provisions of the t~at Israel was using the Security Council for tenden­ ha 1949 General Armistice Agreement did not apply. In a tlOUS propaganda in order to distort the truth and agi­ fir later development defensive fire had been directed by t2.te public opinion so as to serve well known purposes. be Israel exclusively towards and against the posta from The position of Israel could not but damage the pres­ on which the Syrian attack was being conducted. At that tige of the Council. I stage, the Syrian forces had opened a heavy artillery 111. He declared that Israel seemed to forget the Cl : barrage on seven villages, along a front of more than number of ti:nes which.it had been condemned by the C I' seventeen kilometres. The effect of the bombardment Councl1 for Its premeditated armed aggressions. The ce had been to enlarge the original incident and to prevent Israel complaint should be placed within the framework pa any localization or restriction of its effects. The Syrian of Israel provocations and daily violations of the pro­ ne attacks of 3 December had caused Israel one death and visions of the General Armistice Agreement. th I U ! three injuries, while damage to property was estimated 112. Illicit activities of a varied character, committed at 1 million Israel pounds. He emphasized that Israel eithe~ within the demilitarized area or on Arab prop­ had taken the initiative of requesting the United e:ty, mcluded: military activities, violations of Syrian Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) air space, the presence of Israel police, damage to Arab to call for an immediate cease-fire, which had been lands, penetration within the frontiers of Syrian areas set by UNTSO for 1700 hours on 3 December. He and expulsion of the Arab population. stated that by the confession and avowal of the United Arab Republic authorities themselves, no casualties or 113. Israel civilian activities, he stressed, were al­ I damage had been inflicted on Syrian farms or villages. ways accompanied by military activities which were The Council, he said, was faced with an act of inter­ prohibite~ by t?e General Armistice Agreement, and national aggression, flagrant and unprovoked, involv­ were deSigned m most cases to provoke incidents for ing a breach of the central provisions of the Charter Israel propaganda purposes and to make possible ex­ and of article I of the General Armistice Agreement. tra-yagant Isra~l ~laims inspired by an expansionist pohcy. Itwas Withm that framework that the incident of ne 109. He noted that it was the third occasion that 3 December should be examined by the Council. year on which Israel villages had been attacked by Sy Syrian artillery; but the intensity of the attacks ex­ 114. He pointed out that, according to the report of wa ceeded any previously recorded. Both the number of UNTSO,.the initiative for the action had been taken by Co Syrian guns and the number of shells fired had been the IsraelIs and that the Syrians had replied in legiti­ the greater than at any time since 1948. After having de­ mate defence. That was the only thing that he had been we scribed the topographical features of the area, he stated able. to fi~d in the report. The firing had stopped on the SlO that geography accorded great strategic advantage to Synan Side when the cease-fire order had been given by the Syrians. Israel's civilian targets were numerous, by UNTSO. 7, easily visible and well within range. This did not mean, 115. He was surprised to note that the Council had Ch however, that it was beyond Israel's technical capacity, been seized of the matter before the Mixed Armistice wh in the exercise of its inherent right of self-defence, to Commission had had an opportunity to examine it. In req silence Syrian artillery attack. He turned to the Security accordance with the provisions of article VII, para­ me Council for peaceful redress, and still more for vigor­ graph. 7, of the Israel-Syri~n ~eneral A~mistice Agree­ 1 ous deterrence. There were reasons to apprehend that ment It was for that CommlsslOn to conSider complaints fail unless a strong influence was brought to bear by the of this type. That principle had been implemented when SlO 18 I more important questions had been discussed in the hold emergency meetings, save in very exceptional Council, such as complaints of aggression against Caza, circumstances, the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Qibya, Nahhalin and so on. Commission and the Chief of Staff of UNTSO could 116. In conclusion, he reminded the Council that the not speak on behalf of the Mixed Armistice Commis­ Arab countries had never been condemned by the Se­ sion when they asked for the implementation of the curity Council for violations of armistice conventions General Armistice Agreement. In the case of the de­ and that Israel, in spite of many condemnations, con­ militarized zone they relied, in some cases successfully, tinued its aggressive expansionist policy, which was a on the special powers conferred on the Chairman under iepeated, with threat to peace and security in that part of the world. article V of the General Armistice Agreement. When cl attended the If it was desired that peace and security reign in that they could not invoke article V, the representations and ted Arab Re­ part of the world, it was necessary that the provisions suggestions they were asked by one party to make to :ed themselves of the armistice conventions be implemented. For his the other were usually met by counter-complaints. That utilize an ad­ part, his country would continue to do so. situation had created a state of mind contrary to the )rder to inflict 117. The representative of Israel said that the repre­ letter and spirit of the General Armistice Agreement. ile they them­ sentative of the United Arab Republic had not denied That state of mind explained the second phase of the vas vitally ur­ the central fact that its artillery had bombarded the 3 December incident, namely, the resort to artillery lted Arab Re­ seven villages in question. Referring to the report of after a first phase in which small arms had been used. t was his duty the Chief of Staff, he said that it bore out every single The pattern for the 3 December incident had been set the bombard­ one of the salient features in the development of that on 6 November when resort to artillery had followed :y must be re­ situation which he had subdtted to the Council. He the use of small arms. he stated that concluded that what stood for international discussion 123. He concluded that it was that pattern-use of [tion of which and judgement was the action on 3 December, beginning artillery after the use of small arms-which might en­ I security, his with the attack on Israel civilians of Gonen, and culmi­ danger the peace, already threatened by the tension intenance and nating in an artillery bombardment which bore the clas­ which had developed in the growing disrespect for the ~ast, turned to sic impress of a characteristic act of war. obligations agreed to in 1949 when the General Armis­ tediate end to 118. Replying to the statement of the representative tice Agreement had been concluded. of Israel, the representative of the United Arab Re­ 124. At its 844th meeting, held on 15 December 1958, Arab Republic public stated that he had never said that Syrian ar­ the Council resumed its consideration of the Israel com­ t the first time tillery had bombarded the Israel localities. What he plaint. The Secretary-General stated that it had always dl for tenden­ had said was that Syrian artillery had replied to the ~een his firm view that no military action in contraven­ truth and agi­ fire of Israel artillery. There was a major difference tIOn of the cease-fire clauses of the General Armistice own purposes. between those two views-and the responsibility fell Agreements, as reconfirmed in the undertakings of nage the pres- on the party which started the incident. 1956, :::ould be justified, even by prior military action 119. On 8 December 1958, the Secretary-General from the other side, except in the case of obvious self­ circulated a report (S/4124), by Major-General Carl defence, in the most accurate sense of the word and to forget the ~ight lemned by the Carlsson von Horn, Chief of Staff of UNTSO, con­ even then limited to what the actual defence need ;ressions. The cerning the incident. The report consisted of three reasonably be considered as having warranted. He parts: part I dealt with the sequence of events as wit­ warned that any wavering by the United Nations in :he framework t~e ns of the pro­ nessed by United Nations observers, complaints by application of that principle would lead to " situa­ ment. the parties, and investigations of the complaints by tIon f:haracterized by military actions and counter­ UNTSO; part II dealt with phases of the 3 December actions in a cumulative series. The danger implicit in ter, committed incident; part III dealt with the major incidents since such c: development was only too well known from past m Arab prop­ the beginning of 1958. expenence. .ons of Syrian ~mage 120. The Chief of Staff noted that there had been 125. The Secretary-General observed that one mat­ to Arab two distinct phases in the 3 December incident: first, f Syrian areas ter was the consideration of the principles to be main­ the small-arms firing during which an Israel shepherd tained and the judgements which they might eaU for in had been killed, and secondly, the subsequent extensive the ca~e which was before the Council. Another matter, ssed, were al­ artillery fire directed at military positions or villages. to :whIch as ?ecretary-General h~ had to give most s which were He observed that the incident in which the shepherd had senous attentIOn, was the underlymg problems which greement, and been killed had followed a series of Israel complaints had led to the present state of tension and to the use : incidents for alleging illegal grazing or, in one case, the stealing of of f?rce. Wha~ev~r ~hose problems, if they were not :e possible ex­ cattle. conSIdered as Justlfyl11g the use of force, they called, 1 expansionist 121. United Nations observers on the spot had wit­ on the other hand, for serious efforts towards a peaceful the incident of nessed such crossings of the Demarcation Line by solution eliminating the cause of friction. In his opinion Council. Syrian herds. The Chief of Staff emphasized that this the Chief of Staff had already made commendable ef~ ) the report of was a matter which the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice forts to come to grips with those underlying problems. .been taken by Commission should deal with, under all its aspects, if ~e ,,:as convinced that his continuing work in that plied in legiti­ the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement d~rectlOn had the fullest support of the Council. It was at he had been were observed, and if the Mixed Armistice Commis­ hl~ hope that tl~e par~i~s, likewise, would co-operate stopped on the sion were convened to consider claims or complaints ~1th hIm fully, m a spmt of frankness and reconcilia­ ad been given by either party, as provided in article VII, paragraph hon and guided by the necessity to restore and maintain 7, of the General Armistice Agreement. Successive peaceful conditions. le Council had Chiefs of Staff of UNTSO had explained how and 126. The Secretary-General expressed his concern xed Armistice why complaints were being lodged with or without a about the deterioration in conditions around the Huleh examine it. In request for investigation and without a request for a region and the northern demilitarized zone which had :le VII, para­ meeting of the Mixed Armistice Commission. taken place over the year and had led to serious inci­ mistice Agree­ 122. The Chief of Staff stated that as a result of the dents in November and December. He was even more der complaints failure of the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commis­ c.oncerned ab?ut .symptoms indicating that the deteriora­ lemented when sion to hold regular sessions since June 1951 and to hon was contl11ul11g. Although he might understand the 19 I security reasons which prompted a nation to proceed it was incumbent on the Security Council solemnly to with measures, like a military build-up, in an area which draw attention to the exceptional gravity of the event, had proved to be explosive, he knew from experience such incidents, by their very nature, in principle and in that in actuality such steps, in such a situation as the the first instance fell within the competence of the present one, tended to increase the insecurity. What Mixed Armistice Commission. He shared the views had happened, therefore, must be the starting point for of the Secretary-General that no effort should be spared a turn of developments in a more favourable direction. to put an end to the situation, the gravity of which had It could not be permitted to continue as a chain-reaction, been demonstrated by the incident of 3 December. involving steadily increasing risks. 135. The representative of Panama referred to the 127. He drew the attention of the Council to his last resolution adopted by the Security Council on plan to visit the countries concerned within the near 22 January 1958 on the Palestine question (S/3942), future. It was his intention while there to take up the and expressed the hope that, by means of the machinery situation to which he had referred, for most serious provided by the Charter and the General Armistice consideration by the authorities of Israel and the United Agreement, conciliation might be arrived at between Arab Republic, in the hope of breaking the present trend those two neighbouring countries in the Middle East, and soliciting their full support for his efforts to attack who were the parties to the controversy, for the benefit the underlying problems which were at the source of of universal peace and security. the tension. 136. The representative of Iraq felt that a strict im­ 128. Finally, he informed the Council that letters had plementation of the General Armistice Agreement and been addressed to the Israel and Syrian authorities by the use of the machinery provided thereunder would the Chief of Staff on 11 December 1958, requesting prevent the recurrence of conflicts and incidents. In that arrangements be made as early as possible for visits his view the incident must be looked upon as the latest by United Nations military observers to areas within in a series calculated to bring about the annexation of the north-eastern region, which in that case were of the uemilitarized zone by Israel, in violation of the interest and which were specifically mentioned in arti­ General Armistice Agreement. The direct reference of cle V of the General Armistice Agreement. Positive the question to the Security Council, without first seek­ replies had been received from the Syrian and the Israel ing a decision from the Mixed Armistice Commission, authorities, and inspections had started that morning. was the result of Israel's illegal boycott of the Mixed 129. The representative of the United States thought Armistice Commission. If the incident had assumed a that it was appropriate for the Council to address itself serious character, it was because the Israelis had pre­ to the matter under discussion. He recalled his Govern­ vented t.~e United Nations investigation on the scene ment's position when the Council met on 28 May 1957 and resorted to artillery fire, to which the other side to consider developments in the area, and pointed to had been compelled to reply. the need for greater respect for the provisions of the Israel-Syrian Armistice Agreement and for greater 137. The representative of Canada deeply regretted resort to the machinery provided for by that Agree­ the incident which had disturbed the peace and had ment. It was due to neglect of the Armistice Agreement taken lives and destroyed property. He was also gravely by the parties themselves that incidents along the de­ concerned at the manifestation of increased tension in marcation line had assumed serious proportions. that unsettled area of the Middle East. He associated his delegation with the Secretary-General's remarks. 130. He concluded by saying that the Council would do well if it encouraged caution to prevail, thus allow­ 138. The representative of the Union of Soviet So­ ing the Secretary-General an opportunity to address cialist Republics observed that.the main characteristic himself directly to the points at issue during his forth­ of the incident was the use of artillery fire, and that coming trip to that part of the world. was what made it so serious. He drew attention to the 131. The representative of the United Kingdom said Chief of Staff's conclusion that the pattern for the that it was disturbing to read, in paragraph 28 of the incident of 3 December had been set by the incident of report of the Chief of Staff, that the number of com­ 6 November. In both cases, as could be clearly seen plaints lodged by Israel and the United Arab Republic from the report of the Chief of Staff, the initiator of had been substantially higher since July than during the serious incidents, and therefore the guilty party, the first six months of 1958. He was disturbed by one was Israel. particular feature of the latest incident: the use of ar­ 139. His delegation believed that the trip which the tillery, and especially its employment against centres Secretary-General planned to take to the area could of civilian population. serve a useful purpose with a view to ensuring condi­ 132. Referring to the fatal shooting there last month tions for full implementation of the Armistice Agree­ of the wL.e of the British Air Attache in Israel, Mrs. ment and full utilization of the machinery established Doran, he stated that his Government had studied a for assisting in the implementation of the Armistice factual report made by a military observer of UNTSO Agreement. on 20 November. In the circumstances. and in the ab­ 140. The representative of Colombia deeply deplored sence of any satisfactory explanation, his Government the incident of 3 December. His delegation associated must therefore hold the Government of the United Arab itself with all the other members of the Council in Republic responsible, and they were taking appropriate expressing the hope that the two parties involved in the action to raise the matter with that Government. situation would abstain completely from recourse to 133. He was sure that the Council would prefer, armed force in their froiltier differences since they had rather than discussing the problem in detail here, to available to them suitable means to solve those differ­ assure the Secretary-General of its full support in the ences peacefully. efforts he intended to make to reverse the trend towards 141. The representative of Israel stated that by every increasing violence. one of the standards referred to by the Secretary­ 134. The representative of France expressed the General and by six of the previous speakers, such acts grave concern of his Government. He noted that while as the shooting of Israel shepherds of Gonen and the I '"""'_""·,.,~.;"'t~'ilO'-~'1'·~\fl'Iitl'iS$~;.re;,_l!mlRllll~~~------.., •(nt~~~~;,~~.~&~.",~.;It;~~,.~~,...... _i1i'i1iOlflil_Ill>\1·r ... .. ',;...~ • bombardment of seven villages in the Huleh valley that, on 23 January 1959, automatic fire had been :ouncil solemnly to stood clearly condemned. He declared that the object opened by Syrian soldiers on two shepherds who had 'avity of the event, in seeking recourse to the Security Council had been led their flocks from the village of Ma'ale Habashan in in princip1e and in to make a psychological impact far beyond that avail­ Galilee to their usual grazing ground situated inside ~ompetence of the able to the Mixed Armistice Commission. Every Mem­ Israel territory. One of them had been killed. Machine­ shared the views ber of the United Nations had the right of uncondi­ gun file from a Syrian military position had interfered ,rt should be spared tional recourse to the Security Council, and that right of with the search for the victim, but no fire had been avity of which had recourse to the Council was not lost by any Member returned from Israel territory. It was further stated If 3 December. State by reason of other agreements into which it might that the border in the area was clearly marked by a have entered. He considered that even if the Syrian­ stone fence about one kilometre in length, and that no na referred to the Israel armistice machinery had been working in perfect possible confusion in respect of its position could arise. curity Council on order, he could not regard an event of that scope as luestion (S/3942), 147. On 29 January 1959, the Secretary-General cir­ being appropriate for an international instance falling culated a report (S/4154), by Major-General Carl IS of the machinery so far sport of the maximal authority which the Se­ General Armistice Carlsson von Horn, Chief of Staff of UNTSO, con­ curity Council, and it alone, could mobilize in the name cerning the incident of 23 January 1959. lrrived at between of the international community. 1 the Middle East, 148. The Chiet of Staff stated that the two versions :rsy, for the benefit 142. The representative of the United Arab Republic given to the Mixed Armistice Commissbn by Israel and said that the precedents of which Israel had been guilty Syria apparently agreed on the foiiowing point: the obliged the forces on the demarcation lines to take all Israel shepherd had been mortally wounded by a shot e!t that a strict im­ the necessary precautions, for one could never know or shots fired from Syrian territory while he was with ice Agreement and what would be the intensity of the shooting or what his herd in the vicinity of the armistice demarcation thereunder would would be the scope of the aggression which Israel line, which in that area followed the international and incidents. In planned to carry out. Referring to the incident which boundary between Syria and Palestine. The two ver­ l upon as the latest had taken place ~n connexion with Mrs. Doran, the sions differed on the question of who had opened fire: the annexation of wife of the British Air Attache, he stated that it had according to the Israel complaint, Syrian military posi­ n violation of the never been discussed by the Mixed Armistice Commis­ tions had opened machine-gun fire on the Israel herd; direct reference of sion and that the circumstances in which Mrs. Doran according to the Syrian complaint, the Israel shepherds without first seek­ had been killed were still, in his opinion, rather mys­ had fired the first shots in the direction of Arab vil­ iistice Commission, terious. lagers and fire had been returned. Tcott of the Mixed ent had assumed a 143. He remarked that, in refusing to co-operate 149. At its 845th meeting, on 30 January 1959, the e Israelis had pre­ with the Mixed Armistice Commission and the Truce Council included the Israel complaint in its agenda, and ation on the scene Supervision Organization, and in constantly violating the representatives of Israel and the United Arab Re­ lich the other side the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement, public were invited to take places at the Council table. Israel was creating the state of tension referred to in 150. The representative of Israel listed main events the report of the Chief of Staff. For its part, the United which had taken place on the Israel-Syrian frontier la deeply regretted Arab Republic would not fail to assist UNTSO to he peace and had since he last had addressed the Council, in December regain its authority, and, as in the past, it would co­ 1958. All those incidents, he said, had occurred outside le was also gravely operate with the Mixed Armistice Commission, the lcreased tension in the demilitarized zone. Following each of them Israel United Nations and the Secretary-General in carrying had 10dg17d a complaint with the Mixed Armistice Com­ :ast. He associated out the General Armistice Agreement. :ieneral's remarks. mission. Thus, the attack on the shepherds near Ma'ale 144. Summing up the debatf', the President felt cer­ Haba&han on 23 January had not been an isolated inci­ nion of Soviet So­ tain that the Council agreed that incidents of the nature dent. It had been a climax, not a beginning. nain characteristic it had been discussing were regrettable, but also that 151. The report of UNTSO, he stated, made it clear llery fire, and that they could be effectively dealt with by the Chief of Staff ew attention to the that the mortal attack had come from "shots fired from and his organization. He fully recognized the gravity Syrian territory." The body had been found in Israel le pattern for the of the action about which Israel had complained. The ,by the incident of territory where the entire engagement had taken place. Council would, he felt confident, agree that the authority His government could not avoid the impression that the lId be clearly seen of the United Nations should be respected and that the Syrian forces, which maintained machine-gun and lff, the initiator of parties should continue their co-operation with the artillery positions right up to the frontier, were acting ~ the guilty party, Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision under a policy of opening fire whenever anyone came Organization in the spirit of the Armistice Agreement. into view on the Israel side. the trip which the 145. He took note of the Secretary-General's inten­ 1.52. He declared that what was needed was no to the area could tion to visit the countries concerned, and there to take to ensuring condi­ longer, therefore, a clarification of technical facts, but up the present situation for most serious consideration an impact of international opinion to prevent a further , Armistice Agree­ by the authorities of Israel and the United Arab Repub­ ~hinery deterioration of the situation. For there were only three established lic, in the hope of breaking the present trend and possible courses of action once a complaint on an attack • of the Armistice soliciting their full support for the Council's efforts to had been made to the Mixed Armistice Commission and attack the underlying problems which were at the source UNTSO had reported on it. One was to suffer the )ia deeply deplored of the tension. repetition of such attacks. That was clearly inconceiv­ legation associated able. Another was to withstand such aggression by of the Council in B. Complaint hy Israel against the United Arab direct action in self-defence. That could be effectively ties involved in the done, but it was a last, not a first resort. The third one from recourse to Republic concerning an incident of 23 January 1959 at Ma'ale Habashan was to seek the aid of the organ on which the Members Ices since they had of the United Nations had conferred responsibility for solve those differ- 146. By a letter dated 26 January 1959 (S/4151), international security, in the hope that its members the representative of Israel requested that an urgent would exercise their influence in support of the cease­ :tated that by every meeting of the Council should be convened to consider fire provisions of the General Armistice Agreement. by the Secretary­ the renewal of aggression by United Arab Republic The Israel forces had been operating under instructions ,peakers, such acts armed forces on the Israel-Syrian border. It was stated not to open fire uniess they were fired at. of Gonen and the 21 '1 n' • • FI •• rIP • • I been 153. Referring to Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter, the Agreement by proper resort to the Mixed Armistice 10 had he stated that to deny the preventive element in the Commission and full co-operation with UNTSO, and ;han in responsibility of the Security Council would be an issue orders to the military commanders on both sides inside injury both to Middle Eastern peace and to the utility to prohibit all firing except in cases of obvious sel£­ lchine- and prestige of the United N(\tions system. He there­ defence. rfered fore sought to engage the attention and responsibility 159. The representative of the Union of Soviet So­ i been of the Council to the end that the cease-fire be restored cialist Republics stated that not one of Israel's accusa­ stated as an injunction rigorously binding on the Syrian tions against the United Arab Republic was incontro­ I by a forces. There were, of course, many intricate problems vertible and that Israel was disregarding the procedure hat no which had their scene on the Syrian-Israel frontier, laid d?wn in the Armistice Agre~ment. The Security .arise. Those were matters which could be discussed and nego­ Councll should recommend both sldes to refrain from 'al cir- tiated. Indeed article VIII of the Israel-Syrian Armis­ any action which might le1.d to border incidents and I Carl tice Agreement laid down the procedure for such conflicts and indicate to the Government of Israel the I, con- discussion. need to abide strictly by the provisions of the Armistice 154. The representative of the United Arab Rep\lb­ Agreement. rsions lie said that the Coundl was faced with an incident of 160. The representative of Japan added the sugges­ el and the nature of those which generally took place along the tion ~hat if the Council'~ injut;-ctions were not respected t: the frontier. It was a locai i.n6dcnt which, far from justi­ and tf the peace machmery m the area did not work a shot fying a meeting of the Security Council, fell within properly, the ~ouncil might find ways to strengthen, s with the competence of the Mixed Armistice Commission. reVIse or reVIew the whole structure of the peace cation The Council had not even all the elements which would machinery. :tional make it possible for it to take any decision whatever on the subject. The objective pursued by Israel in raising 161. The representative of France, stressing that the ) ver- recur~~nce i fire: the complaint in the Council had nothing in common of incidents in the region was due to the , posi- with the provisions of the Charter or even with the preval1mg atmosphere of nervousness and tension, hoped that calm would gradually be restored, aside from herd; practices of the Council itself. It was not the first time Iherds that Israel had made use of that kind of contrivance, measures which might eventually be studied, such as b vil- and the Council must not be converted into a sort of those suggested by the representative of Japan. summary tribunaL 162, The representative of Israel stated that the ce; 9, the 155. He considered that it was for the Mixed Armis­ tral issue which the Security Council had faced had i, and tice Commission to solve the matter in accordance with been that of human life. He pointed out that the period b Re- article VII of the General Armistice Agreement. He of greatest relative tranquillity had until now been the table. noted that the representative of Israel had drawn the period during which the current procedures had been adopted by both sides, namely, submission to the Mixed ~vents attention to Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter, Those Articles gave certain powers to the Security Council, Armistice Commission, investigation by UNTSO and :>ntier ~eferenc~ to the Security Council in such cases where ~mber but when there was a body which had been created by the agreement of both parties, under the auspices of the Isolated lllstances merged into a serious and cumulative lltside trend. [srael Council, it seemed to him that, first of all, the parties Com- must go through that body, particularly when faced 163. The representative of the United Arab Republic fa'ale with an incident such as the one under consideration. asked whether Israel, which gave as its reason for turn­ I inci- 156. It was in that spirit and in order to comply with ing to the Security Council the fact that the latter com­ the opinions that were expressed at the last meeting that manded more influence and greater prestige, had itself his Government had decided quite recently to seize the r~spe~ted the resolutions O! the Council concerning the clear sltuatlOn on the demarcatlOD line, and had forgotten from Mixed Armistice Commission of two cases of a serious nature which certainly could have been submitted to the the ag1?'ression for which it.had been condemned by the [srael Councd on numerOliS occaSlOns. He reiterated his coun­ place. Security Council, particularly if he were to compare the facts with the latest Israel complaint. He referred try's willingne~s to implement the armistice agreements. it the At the same time he was certain that the instructions and to a complaint of the United Arab Republic against the flying of Israel aircraft over its territory on 20 Novem­ given to the troops on the demarcation line included Icting respect for those agreements. came ber 1958 and 8 January 1959. The Council would see that in those incidents which had taken place following the last meetings of the Security Council, Israel had c. Other communications s no been condemned twice. He recalled that on 17 Novem­ i, but bel' 1950, the Security Council had decided to refer the (i) ADDITIONAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF rther examination of the Egyptian complaint to the Mixed RELATING TO THE MOUNT Scopus INCIDENT three Armistice Commission, even when the Egyptian com­ 164. On 28 July 1958, the Secretary-General circu­ ttack plaint involved a far more important complaint than lated an addendum (S/4030/Add.l) to the report of land the frontier incidents of a local character contained in the Chief of Staff dated 17 June 1958 (S/4030) 6 con­ r the the complaint by IsraeL cerning the firing incident of 26 May 1958 on Mount ceiv- Scopus, near Jerusalem. The addendum consisted of n by 157, He considered that incidents of that kind were not likely to be reduced in number if the Truce Super­ two sections. The first was a summary of the results of iVely a ballistic examination; the second was a report on the lone vision Organization was not capable of obtaining the co-operation of Israel and obtaining respect for the problem of the road between Issawiya village, on Mount lbers Scopus, and Jerusalem. f for terms of the Armistice Agreement. 158. The representatives of the United Kingdom, the 165. The examination had revealed that the bullet Ibers which had killed Lieutenant Colonel Flint had been a ~ase- I'" United States, Japan, France, Italy, Canada, China and direct shot. It was thus to be considered as cstablisherl nent. I; Panama expressed basically the views that both parties tions should observe strictly the provisions of the General 6 See Official Records of the General Assembly Thirteenth Armistice Agreement, show good faith and respect for Session, Supplement No, 2, paras. 46-52, , 22 ~~'it ~!IIIii ••"""""~'«'fQa''''llt..A.:'£U",~..:..~;ri\;~i::~.:;';;~'Q'''l~.B· __ll!laalllg .._ ...a---..------~. art to the Mixed Armistice that Lieutenant Co}onel Flint had beep shot by a bullet the representative of the United Arab Republic f w'th UNTSO and fired from Jordaman controlled ;~erntory, re­ :ra lOnanders on both'sides and that at quested the circulation as a Security Council document least one of the Lraeli policemen killed had been shot of c?mm es of obvious self- a resolution condemning Israel, adopted on that date by a bullet fired by a rifle of the same type as that with by the Egyptian-Israel in cas which the fatal Mixed Armistice Commission shot at Lieutenant Colonel Flint had in regard to the been fired. incident. f the Union of Soviet So­ (iii) COMPLAINT not one of Israel's accusa­ 166. In the second section of the report, it was stated BY THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC ab Republic was incontro­ that Mr. Andrew W. Cordier, as specially-designated AGAINST ISRAEL CONCERNING AN INCIDENT OF disreaarding the procedure representative d the Secretary-General, 17 IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF Agr~ement. and the Chief SINAI The Security of Staff, had hJth engaged in a careful investigation both sides to refrain from of the road in question. It was difficult to see, as the 169. In a letter dated Israel 19 February 1959 (S/4164), d to border incidents and authorities alleged, that security and safety fac­ the representative of the United Government tors were Arab Republic com­ of Israel the considerations in the closing of the road, and plained to the President of the provisions such a policy Security Council that of the Armistice could in no sense be regarded as con­ Israel soldiers had committed another tributing to the tranquillity grave act of of the area. In consultations aggression, on 17 February, in the southern part with Israel authorities, the of f Japan added the sugges­ specially-designated repre­ Sinai. It was stated that an armed Israel patrol had tnctions were not respected sentative had requested an immediate opening of the ambushed four citizens road of the United Arab Republic in the area did not work to normal vehicular and pedestrian traffic in its three kilometres inside United own right Arab Republic territory : find ways to strengthen, and as a contribution to an atmosphere of and had fired upon them with general improvement small-arms fire, killing e structure of the peace in the various tensions current on two of them and wounding one. Mount Scopus. Before his departure from Jerusalem, 170. In another he had been informed by the Israel Foreign Office that letter dated 23 February (S/4167), f France, stressing that the the representative of the the road would be open during the daylight hours as United Arab Republic re­ he region was due to the from 23 June. quested the circulation as a Security Council document nerVOusness The special1y-designaced representative and tension, had maintained that of a resolution regarding the 17 February incident, ally be there was no reason why th~ road restored, aside from should not be open twenty-four adopted by the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Com­ .tually be studied, hours a day. The Chief such as of Staff had reported the matter mission on 21 February, also condemning Israel. ~sentative of Japan. to the Secretary­ General, who had since brought the question to the (iv) COMPLAINT f Israel stated BY ISRAEL AGAINST THE UNITED that the cen­ attention of the Government of Israel. ARAB REpUBLIC ty Council had ~ad OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE faced FREEDOM OF PASSAGE pointed out that the penod (ii) COMPLAINT BY THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC THROUGH THE SUEZ CANAL AGAI1'TST ISRAEL CONCERNING ity had until now been the AN INCIDENT OF 171. In a letter dated 17 4 FEBRUARY 1959 AT RAFAH (S/4173), the rrent procedures had ~een representative of Israel complained to the President of y, submission to the MIxed 167. In a letter dated 5 February 1959 (S/4156), the Security Council of two acts by the United Arab stigation by UNTSO RepUblic and the representative of the United Arab Republic com­ of unlawful and unjustified interfereuce with )Uncil in such cases where plained to the President of the Security the freedom of passage through the Suez Canal. It was o a serious Council of an and cumulative act of aggression by an armed Israeli patrol stated that on 26 February 1959, the S.S. Capetan composed Manolis, of four soldiers. It was stated that on 4 February 1959 flying the Liberian flag had been detained by f the United Arab Republic the patrol had crossed the international frontier the United Arab Republic authorities and its cargo im­ between pounded. gave as its reason for turn­ Palestine and Egypt, south of Rafah, and had attacked In the second case, on 17 March, the United he fact that the latter com­ a bedouin camp with small arms fire. A woman, Arab Republic authorities had issued instructions to together unload greater prestige, had itself with her child, had been killed and another woman had and seize the cargo of the S.S. Leglott, flying the the Council concerning the been seriously wounded. flag of the Federal Republic of Germany. Both vessels n line, and had had been en route from Israel to ports of call forgotten 168. In another letter, dated 7 February in South­ lad been condemned by the (S/416O), East Asia. illS. He reiterated his coun­ It the armistice agreements. ~rtain that the instructions demarcation line included ;, , Imunications \ IF THE CHIEF OF STAFF lrNT ScoPus INCIDENT e Secretary-General circu­ )/Add.!) to the report of rune 1958 (S/4030),6 con­ If 26 May 1958 on Mount le addendum consisted of summary of the results of ,econd was a report on the Issawiya village, on Mount

d revealed that the bullet : Colonel Flint had been a e considered as established General Assembly, Thirteenth .46-52. 23 I ~. I

;'1 f I

(

1 I i PART n

Other matters considered by the Council

Chapter 3

THE DATE OF ELECTION TO FILL A VACANCY IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

172. At its 840th meeting, held on 25 November 1958, the Security Cm; -:il noted that a vacancy in the International Court of Justice had occurred as a lc;,...tlt of the death on 25 October 1958 of Judge Jose G. Guerrero, and decided (5/4118), in accordance with Article 14 of the Statute of the Court, that an election to fill the vacancy for the remainder of Judge Guerrero's term, i.e., until 5 , should take place during the fourteenth session of the General Assembly or during a special session before the fourteenth session.

Chapter 4

ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS

A. Application. of the Republic of Guinea circumstances, anU. without rejecting any possibility for the future, it would abstain in the vote. 173. In a letter dated 3 December 1958 (5/4122), the Ambassador of the Republic of Guinea submitted Decision: The draft resolution sub-mitted by Iraq his country's application for admission to membership and Japan (S/4131) 'lX'as adopted by 10 votes in favour, in the United Nations, together with a declaration of with 1 abstention (France). acceptance of the obligations contained in the Charter. He also transmitted a proclamation of the national B. Consideration of proposals relating to the appli­ independence of Guinea and an act adopting the Con­ cations of the Republic of Korea, the Demo­ stitution of the Republic. cratic People's Republic of Korea and the Re­ public of Viet-Nam 174. The Security Council considered the application at its 842nd meeting on 9 December. The following 177. Aiter completing its consideration of the appli­ draft resolution was submitted by Iraq and Japan cation of the Republic of Guinea, the Security Council, (5/4131) : at its 842nd meeting on 9 December, proceeded to con­ ((The Security Council, sider, as sub-items (b) and (c) of its agenda, General Assembly resolutions 1144 A and B (XII) concerning ((Having examined the application of the Republic the applications of the Republic of Korea and the Re­ of Guinea for membership in the United Nations, public of Viet-Nam respectively. The inclusion of these ((Recommends to the General Assembly that the two sub-items had been requested in letters (5/4127 RepUblic of Guinea be admitted to membership in and 5/4128) addressed to the President of the Council the United Nations." on 8 December by the representative of the United States. 175. The representatives of Japan, Iraq, the United Kingdom, China, the United States, the Union of Soviet 178. The representative of the Union of Soviet So­ Socialist Republics, Colombia, Panama and Canada, cialist Republics, at the time of the adoption of the and the President, speaking as the representative of agenda, objected to the inclusion of those questions in Sweden, welcomed the application of the Republic of the agenda of the meeting at which the Council was to Guinea, which they regarded as fully qualified for take up the application of the Republic of Guinea. membership, and supported the joint draft resolution. Decision: The Security Council decided, by 9 votes 176. The representative of France said that his dele­ to 1 (USSR), with 1 abstention (Iraq), to include sub­ gation felt that too many questions remained unan­ items (b) and (c) in the agenda. swered, with regard to the future status of Guinea in 179. The Council had before it the following two relation to France and the Community and in relation to joint draft resolutions (S/4129/Rev.l and 5/4130/ other African countries, for the Security Council to be Rev.l) submitted by France, Japan, the United Kinr/- in a position to take a formal decision now. In the dom and the United States. 0 25 "The Security Council, resolution concerning the Repul.>lic of Korea (S/4129/ "Noting the General Assembly's reaffirmation at Rev.l) : carry out the n its twelfth session that the Republic of Korea is fully "I. Delete the first paragraph uf the draft reso­ Nam provided qualified for admission to membership in the United lution. was no reason f Nations and should be admitted, "2. In the second paragraph, replace the word 'ap­ was fully qualif "Having again examined the application of the plication' by the word 'appiications' and insert the 193. The re} Republic of Korea for membership in the l7nited words 'the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Government's St Nations, and' before the words 'the Republic of Korea'. had been delaye "Recommcnds to the General Assembly that the "3. In the third paragraph, insert the words 'the 194. The rep! Republic of Korea be admitted to membership in the Democratic Peopk's Republic of Korea and' before would abstain i United Nations." the words 'the Republic of Korea' and the word 'simultaneously' after the words 'be admitted'." "Thc Security COlHICil, 184. The duty of the Council was to use all its au­ "Noting the General Assembly's reaffirmation at thority to hasten the implementation of the its twelfth session that Viet-Nam is fully qualified for agreement of 1954 on the reunification of Viet-Nam, admission to membership in the United Nations and which was an indispensable condition for the admission should be admitted, of a unified Viet-Nam to membership in the United I, "H(cving again exam ined the application of Viet­ Nations. He would therefore vote against the joint Nam for membership in the United Nations, draft resolution concerning Viet-Nam. He also de­ "Recommends to the General Assembly that Viet­ clared that the time had come to put an end to the Nam be admitted to membership in the United discriminatory policy of the Western Powers in respect Nations." to the Mongolian People's Republic and to solve posi­ tively the question of its admission into the United !30. The representative of the United States noted Nations. that the General Assembly had repeatedly asserted that the Republic of Korea should be admitted to member­ 185. At the 843rd meeting on 9 December, the repre­ ship in the United Nations. Citing the close links be­ sentative of France emphasized that a prompt decision tween the Republic of Korea and the United Nations, should bp taken by the Council to recommend the ad- > under whose auspices that Republic was established and mission of the Republic of Korea. through whose assistance its independen..:e had been 186. The representative of Canada said that the R~­ maintained, he noted that the growth of democratic public of Korea had for far too long been unjustifiably government and economic progress were reviewed an­ prevented from assuming its rightful place in the Or­ nually by the General Assembly on the basis of reports ganization. sub!'1itted by United Nations organs in that country. 187. The repres"ntative of the United States opposed In view of its full qualification for membership he the USSR amendments, declaring that the North ) declared that the Council had a clear responsibility to Korean regime had never been found qualified for approve the application of the Republic of Korea for membership by the United Nations. He reiterated his membership in the United Nations. delegation's opposition to the admission of Outer Mon­ 181. The representative of China said that the fact golia. :, that the northern part of Korea had been subjected to 188. The representative of Iraq, referring to the I the aggression of international communism constituted principle of universality of membership, said that the I an additional reason for conferring the privileges and applications of Korea and Viet-Nam should not be t rights of membership on the Republic of Korea. divorced from C'ther pending applications. I 189. The representative of Panama said that he i 182. The representative of the United Kingdom i; hoped that the obstruction which had so often been would vote in favour of the joint draft resolution relat­ 1 : placed in the way of the membership of Korea in the ing to the application of the Republic of Korea, and It Nation~ against the USSR amendments. i United would be removed and that the joint I draft resolution would receive the unanimous support Decision: The USSR amendments (S/4132) to the i of the Council. first joint draft resolution (S/4129/Rev.l) were re­ I I 183. The' representative of "he Union of Soviet So­ jected by 8 votes to 1 (USSR), with 2 abstentions I I cialist Republics said that two mutually exclusive ap­ (Iraq, Sweden). I proaches were adopted concerning the resolutlOn of the Decision: The joint draft resolution (S/4129/Rev.l) I' j ~ problem of the admission of Viet-Nam and Korea: one, relating to the application of the Republic of Korea outlined in the decisivns adopted at the tenth session received 9 votes in favour and 1 against (USSR), with of the Assembly, calling for the adoption of measures 1 abstention (Iraq). It was not adopted, the negative I to promote the peaceful unification of those countries; vote being that of a perma,nent member of the Council. the other consisting in the efforts of the United States 190. The representative of the United States said ! and the Western Powers supporting it to confirm and that there was no doubt that Viet-Nam fulfilled the I consolidate the division of Viet-Nam and Korea. conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter, and he Guided by its desire to maintain South Korea as its noted that since 1952 the General Assembly had many military bridgehead, the United States sought by all tir:-tes found that country to be qualified for member­ I means to encourage Synghman Rhee in a policy of mili­ ShIp. He hoped that the Council would be able to fulfil tary provocation against the Democratic People's Re­ its responsibility by recommenri.ing the admission of pJhlic of Korea. While the most appropriate solution Viet-Nam. would be to admit a peacefully unified Korea, in the circumstances admission of both halves of the country 191. The representative of China fully supported the on an equal footing would definitely promote unifica­ joint draft resolution concerning Viet-Nam. tion on a democratic basis. He therefore submitted the 192. The representative of the United Kingdom ex­ following amendments (S/4132) to the joint draft pressed regret that it had not, so far, been possible to 26 !9/ carry out the measures for the reunification of Viet­ resolution in view of the impartiality required by his so- Nam provided for in the Geneva agreement. But that country's membership in the International Commission was no reason for delaying admission of a State which for Supervision and Control in Viet-Nam. ap- was fully qualified for membership. the 193. The representative of France reiterated his rea Decision: The joint draft resolution (S/4130/Rev.1) Government's support of admission of Viet-Nam,which relating to the application of Viet-Nam received 8 votes had been delayed far too long. in fav(lur and 1 against (USSR), with 2 abstentions the 194. The representative of Canada indicated that he (Canada, Iraq). It was not adopted, the negative vote )re would abstain in the vote on the second joint draft being that of a permanent member of the Council. lrd lU- ~va ~m, Ion ted ,int de- the ect )Sl- ted

re- Ion ld-

(~- bly )r-

,ed rth ) for his )ll- the the be

he at- .nd the re- ms I

.1) rea 'itk ive cil. aid the he my er- .Ifil of the

~x- to I 27 PART m The Military Staff Committee

Chapter 5

WORK OF THE MILITARY STAFF COMMITTEE

195. The Military Staff Committee has been functioning continuously under the draft rules of procedure during the period under review and has held a total of twenty-six meetings without making further progress on matters of substance.

,-{

29 19t Coun the p quest tweet tains 28 :M for I Gove resol1 19: cusse on 2 have, two I Cl

19 repn muni the 0 missi whicl catio prav1 posit been whicl rule the p : ; for il ~ an 11 ~. asser ance iour oblig: parti, and 2 19~ repre muni accor of 29 of thl exagi

10iJ Suppi, 8lbi iiiilitiri PART IV

Matters brought to the attention of the Security Council but not discussed in the Council

Chapter 6

COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE INDIA·PAKISTAN QUESTION

INTRODUCTORY NOTE movement, particularly reports about the number of persons arrested by the Government of Pakistan-occu­ 196. The thirteenth annual report of the Security pied Kashmir. After quoting from the Pakistan Times, CounciF contains, in chapter 2, a summary account of the representative of India added that it was obvious the proceedings of the Council on the India-Pakistan that the campaign started by Mr. Ghulam Abbas was question that took place at fourteen meetings held be­ being sustained by Pakistan's own policy and encour­ tween 24 September and 2 December 1957. It also con­ agement and that the much publicized assertions of the tains a summary of the report (5/3984) submitted on Government of Pakistan "condemning" that campaign 28 March 1958 by the United Nations representative had stood clearly exposed. for India and Pakistan on his discussions with the two Governments in pursuance of the Security Council 200. In another letter dated 18 August 1958 resolution of 2 December 1957 (5/3922). (5/4088), and in reply to Pakistan's communication of 30 July 1958 (5/4070), the representative of India 197. The India-Pakistan question has not been dis­ said that his Government considered it extraordinary cussed by the Security Council since its 808th meeting that Pakistan should take exception to India sustaining on 2 December 1957. A number of communica:ions its position by reference to the Charter of the United have, however, been received by the CotlnrU from the Nations. Apparently Pakistan had found provocation two Governments bearing on this question. not only in India's reference to the Charter but also in the fact that Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to the COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENTS OF Indian Union in accordance with the procedures laid INDIA AND PAKISTAN down by an act of the Parliament of the United King­ 198. In a letter dated 30 July 1958 (5/4070), the dom-the Government of India Act 1935-as adapted representative of Pakistan, referring to India's com­ under India (Provisional Constitution) Order 1957, munication of 6 July 1958,8 stated that in the face of issued under the Indian Independence Act 1947, which the obligations arising from the United Nations Com­ was also an enactment of the British Parliament. mission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions, Pakistan's letter could be construed only as its repudia­ which had been accepted by both parties, India's invo­ tion of fundamental international agreements which cation of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter was a had been arrived at at the time of the establishment of provocative act and reflected an aggressive colonialist the two independent States of India and Pakistan. As pcsition. In fact, India's assertions in that respect had regards Kashmir, the basic international obligations of been contradicted by statements of its Prime Minister Pakistan arose out of the inter-governmental agree­ which were on public record. Moreover, it was a basic ments entered into when the British authority had been rule of international law that no State should advance withdrawn. To them had been added Pakistan's obliga­ the provisions of its domestic constitution as a reason tions under the Charter and its commitments under the for its failure to discharge any obligation arising from Security Council resolution of 17 January 1948 and the an international treaty or agreement. Thus, India's resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India assertions had brought into grave question its compli­ and Pakistan. ance with the rules and norms of international behav­ 201. By a letter dated 27 August 1958 (5/4092), the .~ iour and its ability and willingness to discharge the representative of Pakistan, in reply to India's com­ obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, munication of 18 August 1958 (5/4088), stated that the particularly with reference to Article 2, paragraphs 2 fact that the Security Council had not entertained and 3, Article 4, paragraph 1, and Article 25. India's contention was evident from all of its resolu­ 199. In a letter dated 15 August 1958 (5/4086), the tions generally and from the one adopted on 24 Janu­ representative of India referred to the Pakistan com­ ary 1957 in particular. The decision of the Council to munication of 15 July 1958 (5/4048)9 and stated that continue consideration of the dispute was in itself a according to a report published in the Pakistan Times conclusive proof of the fact that at no stage had it ever of 29 July 1958, Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim, President c<,lIl~idered ~e dispu~e to fall 'Yithin the domestic juris­ of the Azad Kashmir Government, had contradicted the dIctIOn of eIther India or Pakistan. The representative exaggerated reports regarding the so-called liberation of Pakistan also submitted extracts from various state­ ments of the Prime Minister of India, as an appendix to his letter, to show that the Prime Minister of India 7 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth Sessioll, Supplement No. 2. 8 Ibid., para, 215. 9 Ibid., para. 217. 31 ~: •I ...---...---- ...i ~},~n"'!~'f""'·';':.""~·:;,<:p~.. ,",·'>;,_.~Ift~~"":q-, .. ,~'~~"r'~-:-.yt.:_".\.,_''''f!';~''''.:~',: had hitherto re~rded the Kashm" qoestloo as aD viousstatemetlts made hy su:::s~::~:::::::t::::"r international problem. Pakistan in the Security Council about Sheikh Abdul- 202. In another letter dated 10 September 1958 lah. Those were on record in Council documents. It (S/4095), the representativ~ of Pakistan said that the was quite clear, therefore, that the Pakistan communi- representative of India in his communication of 15 cation of 10 November 1958 was merely for the purpose August (S/4086) had adduced no evidence to contra- of making propagandist use of the forum of the United dict the facts contained in Pakistan's letter of 15 July Nations. The legal proceedings in regard to Sheikh (S/4048) but "n the contrary, had relied solely on one Abdullah were sub judice, and it would, therefore, not news report. That report had referred not to the scope be proper for the Government of India to comment on and character of the movement itself but to the hap- them. penings of one particular day. In an appendix attached 207. In a letter dated 17 December 1958 (S/4139), to his letter, the representative of Pakistan submitted the representative of Pakistan recalled that the repre- extracts from foreign press reports to show the extent sentative of India, in his letter of 24 October 1958 of the "Kashmir Liberation 110vement" and the steps (S/4107), had said that the Security Council resolution taken by the Pakistan Government in that respect. of 17 January 1948 and the UNCIP resolutions of 203. By a letter dated 24 October 1958 (S/4107), 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, had not given the representative of India, in reply to Pakistan's com- Pakistan any locus standi in Jammu and Kashmir. He munication of '::.7 August 1958 (S/4092), stated that stated that an assertion of that kind could only be made there was not a single provision in the Security Council by effecting a severance of words and meanings. resolution of 17 January 1948 or the UNCIP resolu- Nothing was more evident in the form, language, pur- tions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 which pose and spirit of those resolutions than that they had gave Pakistan any locus standi in Jammu and Kashmir. embodied an agreement between India and Pakistan to Furthermore, Sir Owen Dixon, a former United take certain measures in order to enable the people of Nations representative, had stated that the Pakistan Jamrru and Kashmir freely to decide the question of invasion of Jammu and Kashmir was inconsistent with accession. In fact, the resolution of 17 January 1948 international law. Neither the Security Council nor the had addressed an appeal equally to both India and Pak- Commission had at any time questioned the legality of istan as being "parties" to the dispute. Similarly, the the accession to India of the State of Jammu and Kash- two UNCIP resolutions had proposed a cease-fire, a mir, or the lawful presence of Indian troops in Jammu co-ordinated withdrawal of armies and a plebiscite and Kashmir which was Indian territory. In submitting equally to both parties and had not recognized any extracts from the statements of the Prime Minister of juridical right as belonging to one party and lacking India, the representative of Pakistan had torn them out by the other. It was a matter of the highest importance of their context and had withheld mentioning the cru- that neither the Security Council nor the Commission cial fact which the Prime Minister had repeatedly em- had recognized the legality of Jammu and Kashmir's phasized that the (Kashmir) problem had been created accession to India or of the presence of Indian troops by Pakistan's aggression which still continued and in Jammu and Kashmir. If they had done so, the ques- without the ending of which it was fut~le to look for a tion could not have arisen even of proposing the with- lasting solution. drawal of Indian troops from Kashmir or a plebiscite 204. Referring in the same letter also to Pakistan's to determine the accession of the State of Jammu and communication of 10 September 1958 (S/4095), the Kashmir, far less of such proposals being accepted by representative of India considered that communication India itself. to be baseless and tendentious. 208. The representative of India had also referred 205. 111 a letter dated 10 November 1958 (S/4110), to Sir Owen Dixon as having said that the Pakistan the representative of Pakistan stated that his Govern- invasion of Jammu and Kashmir was inconsistent with ..' ment wished to draw the attention of the Security international law. This was a deliberate misconception "'1 Council to the grave conditions being created in the of Sir Owen's report. As he had himself said, Sir Owen '" India-occupied part of the State of Jammu and Kash- had not attempted to deliver a verdict; he had indicated mir. According to Press reports, Sheikh Abdullah, his willingness to make a certain assumption only to along with other prominent Kashmir leaders, was being remove the impediments, of India's own making, in the .! . brought to a stage-managed trial for alleged conspiracy withdrawal of Indian forces from Kashmir. against the State with the aim of facilitating its annexa- 209. The representative of Pakistan further stated tion by Pakistan. The extraordinary nature of that trial that the purpose of submitting certain passages from and the international implications of the charge were the statements of the Indian Prime Minister was merely obvious from two facts. First, according to the interna- to adduce evidence that the commitments invoked by tional agreement between Pakistan and India on the Pakistan had been accepted by the Prime Minister of one hand, and between them and the United Nations on India. For that reason only passages relevant to that the other, the question as to whether the territory of point had been cited. the State of Jammu and Kashmir should form part of 210. In continuation of his Government's letter of ~. India or of Pakistan was open to decision by the people 10 November 1958 (S/4110), the representative of of the State themselves. Secondly, the Kashmir leaders Pakistan sent another letter on 30 December 1958 now under trial, were demanding the implementation (S/4143), stating that Pakistan wished further to draw 'I, of that agreement. From those facts, it was obvious that the attention of the Security Council to the sudden and that trial was a political manoeuvre and an attempt to mysterious death of Mr. Ghulam Mohammad Shaikh, ,I suppress and intimidate those within the State who a co-accused with Sheikh AbdulIah. That event had continued to demand the implementation of the Security aroused a deep resentment throughout Kashmir and Council's resolutions. Pakistan. Events of that nature should not be allowed 206. By a letter dated 15 December 1958 (S/4138), to go unnoticed as they offered a true glimpse of the the representative of India said that members of the pitiable plight of political prisoners in areas under Security Council were aware of the nature of the pre- Indian occupation in Kashmir. 32 .. ,. ... ',,",'';';'~:~;;>~];'''<;;'io\l~~~.~\J...o..t~''''i'-'':''i.''\:~tr'. ~"5~,_,--~<:,,;,

211. In a letter dated 27 January 1959 (S/4152), "situation" which had arisen out of Pakistan's aggres­ >resentatives of the representative of Pakistan stated that his Govern- sion against which India had complained to the Security Sheikh Abdul- ment's letter of 10 November 1958 had sought to bring Council. The Council had described it as such in its documents. It ) a grave development in Jammu and Kashmir to the resolution of 17 January 1948 and the United Nations istan communi- knowledge of the Security Council and it was astonish- Commission had also adopted the same description in for the purpose ing that India, in its communication of 15 December its resolution of 13 August 1948. n of the United 1958 (S/4138), should construe that as making a ~ard 214. In another letter dated 5 March 1959 (S/4170), to Sheikh ' propagandist use of the forum of the United Nations. the representative of India, with reference to Pakistan's '" therefore, not Since the question of J ammu and Kashmir continued communication of 27 January 1959 (S/4152), stated to comment on \, to be a matter under the consideration of the United ~ that Sheikh Abdullah's trial was an internal matter to Nations, it was Pakistan's duty to keep the Security be dealt with by the Government of Jammu and Kash­ 1958 (S/4139), r Council informed of all pertinent and developing facts. mir in the discharge of their responsibility for the that the repre­ The fact that Sheikh Abdullah was being brought to a maintenance of law and order and that the Government · October 1958 stage-managed trial, solely because he had been de­ of Pakistan had no locus standi in that matter. The luncil resolution manding the implementation of the Security Council representative of India added that while Pakistan in its resolutions of resolution, was a fact of ominous significance and a letter of 6 May 1958 (S/4OO3) had objected to Sh.:ikh had not given matter of immediate concern to the United Nations. The Abdullah's being detained without trial, it had now d Kashmir. He sheer political motivation of India's action being evi­ taken exception to Sheikh Abdullah's trial under ordi­ Id only be made dent, it was not possible to accept India's plea that the nary law of the State. Those contradictory pos;itkms and meanings. so-called legal proceedings in that regard were sub- showed that the object of Pakistan's communications , language, pur­ judice and, therefore, precluded any comment at the regarding the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah was propa­ n that they had present stage. gandist through the forum of the United Nations. Ind Pakistan to • 212. In a letter dated 5 February 1959 (5/4157), the ( 215. In a communication dated 31 March 1959 ,e the people of / representative of Pakistan stated that the apprehension the question of expressed in his letter of 30 December 1958 (S/4143) (S/4177), the representative of India stated that the death of Mr. Ghulam Mohammad Shaikh referred to i January 1948 ,t about the inquiry into the cause of the death of in Pakistan's communication of 30 December 1958 had India and Pak- -/ i .. Mr. Ghulam Mohammad Shaikh had been justified by · Similarly, the later events. It seemed that a mock inquiry had been been due to heart failure, that Pakistan's allegations in a cease-fire, a conducted by the Indian-sponsored regime in Kashmir, that respect were baseless, and that Pakistan had once tld a plebiscite and the convenient finding had been obtained that again sought to interfere in the I:'lternal affairs of the recognized any Mr. Shaikh had died of natural cause. The sombreness State of Jammu and Kashmir. rty and lacking and gravity of that event had been further deepened 216. In a letter dated 7 (S/4185), the hest importance by reports that the health of prominent Kashmir leaders representative of Pakistan referred to India's commu­ he Commission in jail was deteriorating steadily and that one of them nications of 4 March (S/4169) and 5 March 1959 and Kashmir's had died soon after his release. Moreover, the Indian­ (S/4170), and stated that the arguments advanced by f Indian troops sponsored regime of Kashmir had withdrawn the de­ India in its letter of 4 March were precisely those which ne so, the ques­ tention order of Sheikh Abdullah. As a result of that, had been repeatedly submitted by India and rejected by losing the with- Sheikh Abdullah was being treated as an ordinary crim­ the Security Council. The Council's own records, there­ · or a plebiscite inal defendant and was deprived of the special treat­ fore, provided the most effective reply to all the Indian of Jammu and ment to which he was entitled under the law. It would accusations. Moreover, those arguments were based ing accepted by not only jeopardize the safety of the veteran leader of entirely on India's own interpretation of the jointly Kashmir but would also hamper his defence. accepted. UNCIP resolutions of 13 August 1948 and .d also referred i· 213. By a letter dated 4 March 1959 (S/4169), the 5 January 1949. That interpretation was opposed to the at the Pakistan representative of India rejected the arguments ad­ sense of. the resolutions as it had been read and con­ lconsistent with vanced in Pakistan's communication of 17 December strued by all mediators appointed by the Security e misconception 1958 (S/4139), to the effect that Pakistan had locus Council. However, an impartial arbitration could very ,said, Sir Owen standi in Jammu and Kashmir. That Pakistan had no well establish its truth or falsehood, but India had le had indicated J• such locus standi, he stated, had been made indisputably already rejected three proposals for arbitration in that lmption only to clear not only in the three resolutions cited in his dele­ respect. There was no possible explanation of those 1 making, in the .! . gation's letter of 24 October 1958 (S/4107) but also rejections except that India knew that its interpretation lmir. in the various assurances that the United Nations Com- of the international agreement about Kashmir was wrong and incapable of conveying conviction to any I further stated mission had given to the Prime Minister of India and which had been included inthe Security Council records. impartial authority. passages from 'I" lster was merely One of the essential attributes of sovereignty was the 217. As regards India's letter of 5 March 1959 :nts invoked by right to maintain an army and Pakistan had never been (S/4170), Pakistan trusted that the Council would take me Minister of authorized to maintain any army in Kashmir under any full note of the aggravating effect which Sheikh Abdul­ relevant to that of the United Nations resolutions. On the other hand, la.~'s imprisonment had unavoidably created on the those resolutions had recognized India's right to main­ situation in Kashmir. As that situation constituted the tain its army in Kashmir for its security and the nent's letter of subject of an international dispute of which the United maintenance of law and order. Moreover, the Council Nations was cognizant, Pakistan was confident that the :presentative of was aware that the issue of Kashmir was not a terri­ December 1958 Council could not regard the imprisonment of Sheikh torial dispute between India and Pakistan; it was a Abdullah as an internal matter. further to draw the sudden and ammad Shaikh, j fhat event had t Kashmir and .. '~ . not be allowed ;. glimpse of the ~ in areas under ~ 33 Chapter 7

REPORTS ON THE STRATEGIC TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS > 218. The report of the Trusteeship Council to the 219. On 2 , the Secretary-General trans­ Security Council on the strategic Trust Territory of mitted to the Security Council the report (5/4191) the Pacific Islands, covering the period from 13 July received from the representative of the United States ) 1957 to 1 i\llgust 1958 (S/4076), was transmitted to of America on the administrati(.'ll of the Trust Terri­ the Council on 4 August 1958. tory for the period 1 July 1957 to 30 June 1958. ,

Chapter 8

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

220. On 28 July 1958, a letter was circulated that had reason to believe that there were persons in " (5/4066), by which the Secretary-General of the zones under its jurisdiction who were deliberately par­ Organization of American States, on 2 July, had trans­ ticiIJating in the preparation or organization of activi­ mitted to the Secretary-General for the information of tie~, directed against the territorial integrity of Panama, the Security Council the text of a resolution adopted to v.se all measures at its disposal to prevent such activi­ by the Council of the Organization on 27 June 1958, ties, in accordance with the provisions of existing following recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee inter-American conventions. Among other provisions, established on 17 May 1957 by that Council acting pro­ the resolutions also requested American Governments visionally as Organ of Consuitation. Under the resolu­ capable of doing so to place airplanes at the disposal tion the Council cancelled the convocation of a meeting of the Investigating Committee for making peaceful of consultation of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and observation flights over Panamanian territory and terminated that Council's provisional functions as adjacent high seas, as well as surface vessels for the Organ of Consultation in connection with the case sub­ observation and identification of vessels in those areas. lll:tted to it in May 1957 by the Governments of 222. Bya letter dated 14 May 1959 (S/4188), the , and .1o A report of the Ad Hoc Assistant Secretary-General of the Organization of Committee, dated 26 June 1958, was also included, in American States transmitted to the Secretary-General which it was stated, inter alia, that Honduras would of the United Nations for the information of the Secu­ present to the International Court of Justice, on 1 July rity Council the text of a resolution adopted on 2 May > 1958, its note instituting proceedings and ,-equesting by the Council of the Organization acting provisionally compliance with th~ Arbitral Award handed down on as the Organ of Consultation, in response to the request 23 December 1906 by the King of Spain. The differ­ of Panama dealt with in the previous paragraph. Under ences between the two countries were on the way to the resolution, the Council recommended to the Gov­ final settlement, and the Committee recommended there­ ernment of Panama and to the Governments which had fore the measures embodied in the above-mentioned furnished, or might furnish patrol boats, that they reach resolution. agreement that those boats be authorized to detain any 221. In a letter dated 2 May 1959 (S/4184), the vessel in Panamanian territorial seas that 2,ttempted to Assistant Secretary-General of the Organization of approach Panmanian shores for purposes that might American States transmitted to the Secretary-General constitute another invasion. ) of the United Nations, for the information of the 223. Bya letter dated 23 June 1959 (S/4194), the Security Council, copies of resolutions adopted on 28 Secretary-General of the Organization of American

and 30 l\pril by the Council of the Organization acting States transmitted to the Secretary-General of the , . provisionally as Organ of Consultation, in response to United Nations, for the information of the Security '1 a request of the Government of Panama. According to Council, copies of a resolution adopted on 4 June by the terms of the resolutions, the Council of the Organi­ the Council of the Organization in response to a request zation, taking cognizance ot charges made by Panama of the Government of Nicaragua. Under the terms of ... that the inviolability of Panamanian territory had been the resolution, the Council, having taken cognizance of affected by an invasion composed almost entirely of a not:: of the Ambassador of Nicaragua in which it was foreign elements, decided to convoke the Organ of Con­ stated that Nicaraguan territory had been affected by sultation, the date and seat of its meeting to be fixed in an air-borne invasion by individuals of various nation­ due course. It further authorized the Chairman of the alities, decided to convoke the Organ of Consultation, Council to appoint a committee to investigate the perti­ to constitute itself and act provisionally as Organ of nent facts on the spot, and requested any Government Consultation, and to authorize the Chairman of the ~ '. Council to appoint a committee to gather additional 10 Ibid., paras. 494-495. information on the situation.

34 Chapter 9 ums COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE SITUATION IN THE SOUTHERN PART > OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA General trans- lort (S/4191) 224. In a letter dated 18 July 1958 (S/4058/Rev.l), as well as a number of casualties among soldiers and the United States ) the representative of Yemen stated that the incident of civilian population. ~ Trust Terri- ),. 8 July 1958, referred to in the United Kingdom letter 225. In a letter dated 10 September 1958 (S/4096 lne 1958. of 9 July 1958 (S/4044),11 had, in fact, constituted an and Corr. 1), the representative of the United Kingdom , unprovoked attack by the British Royal Air Force stated that on two occasions on 6 September, a supply against life and property of the inhabitants of the town convoy in the territory of the Aden Protectorate had I of Harib and a violation of Yemeni air space. The been attacked by fire from heavy machine-guns located United Kingdom Government had failed to show a jus­ in Yemen. The British forces, in exercise of their right tifiable reason for sending its aircraft to Harib. It of self-defence, had taken measures to silence those could not claim that the firing had come from that town machine-guns by counter-battery action from the air. which was over twenty-two miles away from the border, 226. In a letter dated 7 October (S/4103), the repre­ ) as there were no machine-guns in existence which could sentative of the United Kingdom stated that the Yemeni ere persons in fire such a distance. The representative of Yemen also town of Harib was situated approximately one mile ~liberately par­ charged that the period 6 through 8 May 1958 had from the frontier and not twenty-two miles as claimed ttion of activi­ marked three days of bombing, ground and artillery by the representative of Yemen in his communication lty of Panama, attacks against the Yemeni town of Qataba by the of 18 July (S/4058/Rev.l). With regard to the ~nt such activi­ r United Kingdom forces, causing destruction of a school, Qataba incident, the British aircraft had taken action IS 0 f existing • a customs house and many other neighbouring houses, when fired upon by heavy machine-guns situated in and ler provisions, , near the fortified Yemeni barracks near that town, and 1 Governments no other building except the barracks had been involved at the disposal 111bid., para. 511. in that counter action. iking peaceful territory and vessels for the in those areas. Chapter 10 (S/4188), the , rganization of COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING PROPOSALS FOR THE CONVENING OF A retary-General MEETING OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENTS m of the Secu­ pted on 2 May > 227. By a letter dated 20 July 1958 (5/4059), the 230. On 1 August, the representatives of the United g provisionally '~ permanent representative of the Union of Soviet So­ eto the request Kingdom (S/4071), the United States (S/4074) and cialist Repubhcs transmitted to the Secretary-General France (S/4075) transmitted to the Secretary-General ·aglaph. Under t:le texts of messages which the Head of the Govern­ ~d to the Gov­ copies of the communications which the Heads of their ment of the USSH. had addressed on 19 July to the ents which had respective Govermnents had addressed to the Head of H ...ads of the Govermnents of the United States, the the Government of the USSR in reply to the latter's that they reach United Kingdom, France and India, in which it was :l to detain any proposed that a meeting of those five Heads of State communications which had been transmitted by the it C'.ttempted to > be called on 22 July at Geneva in connexion with the L;SSR representative. ses that might conflict which had broken out in the Near and J\Iiddle 231. Also on 1 August, the representatives of the ) East. The letter expressed the hope that the Secretary­ "Cnited Kingdom (S/4072), Canada (S/4073) and the (S/4194), the General would support the proposal, would take part in United States (S/4074), requested that a special meet­ I of American the meeting, and would contribute to the positive solu­ ing of the Security Council be convened on or about ;eneral of the tion of the problem. 12 August, pursuant to Article 28, paragraph 2, of the If the Security on 4 June by 228. In a reply dated 21 July (S/4062) to the USSR Charter, to discuss certain problems of the Middle East. lse to a request representative's letter, the Secretary-General, while It was further proposed that early consultations be held expressing no personal cpinion on any of the questions ~r the terms 0 f ... among the permanent representatives of the members of substance raised, and leaving to the Heads of Gov­ 1 cognizance of of the Security Council, with the assistance of the in which it was ernments to judge whether a high-level meeting would Secretary-General, in order tu reach agreement on the ~en affected by provide the best means of improving on the disturbing formulation of the item whch the Council would discuss various nation­ situation, declared that should they agree on the desira­ and on other pertinent matters of procedure. bility of such a meeting with the participation of the f Consultation, 232. No further action was taken in the Security y as Organ of Secretary-General, he would consider it to be within his rights and duties to accept and would gladly do so. Council with regard to the above proposals, inasmuch lairman of the ~ '. as the Head of the Government of the USSR, in his ther additional 229. The representative of the USSR transmitted a furthet' series of messages from the Head of Govern­ messages dated 5 August (S/4079), had indicated that meEt of the USSR, on 23 July (5/4064), addressed to his Government considered that the Security Council th{; same four Heads of Governments, on 28 July had shown itself unable to achieve a peaceful solution (S/4067), addressed to the Heads of the Govermnents of the problem of the Near and Middle East, and had ;)1' the United States, the United Kingdom and France, therefore instructed its representative at the United and on 5 August (5/4079), also addressed to the Heads Nations to request the convening of a special session of of the Governments of the United States, the United the General Assembly to discuss the problem. (see also Kingdom and France. chapter 1 above). 35 , "" . ~ . ~ . . ""'. ~

"'.'.".. '. ~ Chapter 11

LEITER DATED 25 JULY 1958 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

233. In a letter dated 25 July 1958 (S/4065), the regions of the Republic. Moreover, United States air­ representative of the United Arab Republic complained craft had daily violated the air space of the United Arab that during the preceding few days, United States air­ craft had continuously intercepted and tried to attack Republic in its northern region. The Government of the the civilian and commercial aircraft of the United Arab United Arab Republic reserved its rights to take any I Republic during their normal flights between the two action which it might deem necessary.

Chapter 12

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE OF EXPERTS TO STUDY THE POSSffiILITY OF DETECTING VIOLATIONS OF A POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ON THE SUSPENSION OF NUCLEAR TESTS

234. Inaccordance with requests of the Governments members of the Security Council the report of the of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Conference of Experts to Study the Possibility of United States of America, the Secretary-General, on Detecting Violations of a Possible Agreement on the 28 August 1958, circulated for the information of the Suspension of Nuclear Tests (S/4091).

Chapter 13

CO~IUNICATIONS FROM THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC RELATING TO THE SUEZ CANAL

235. Bya letter dated 10 August 1958 (S/4089), the tion of 20 May 1958 relating to the text of Heads of Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Repub­ Agreement in connexion with compensation of the Suez lic transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of the Stockholders,12 and expressed to the Secretary-General Final Agreement signed on 13 July 1958 by the repre­ and to the International Bank appreciation for all the sentatives of the United Arab Republic and the Com­ help and co-operation which had been given. pagnie financiere de Suez, with the assistance of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop­ ment. In this connexion, he referred to his communica- 12 Ibid., para. 497.

Chapter 14

LEITER DATED 29 SEPTEMBER 1958 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF LIBYA ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY·GENERAL

236. In a letter dated 29 September 1958 (S/4101), ment of a joint Libyan-French commission to investi­ the representative of Libya requested the Secretary­ gate these frontier attacks, which had been proposed General to draw the attention of the Security Council by Libya, had met with no co-operation on the part of and the Members of the United Nations to the complaint the French authorities. The representative of Libya by his delegation regarding an alleged attack by French military aircraft on 25 September 1958, on a village in conveyed the deep concern of his Government regard­ the south-west of Libya near the Algerian-Libyan ing such acts of aggression against the integrity of frontier. It was stated that this was not the first French Libyan territory, its air space and the security of its attack against Libyan territory, and that the establish- people.

36. I , Chapter 15

~B REPUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE SITUATION ON THE CAMBODIAN·THAI FRONTIER

'nited States air­ 237. In a letter to the Secretary-General dated dian gangs had conducted border raids resulting in 29 November 1958 (S/4121), the representative of suffering by Thai natiomls and damage to their prop­ the United Arab Cambodia charged that troops on a war footing and erty. On 20 November, it was charged, thirty-two Thai )vernment of the large amounts of military equipment were being con­ nationals had been forcibly taken into Cambodia by ghts to take any centrated on the Cambodian frontier by the Govern­ Cambodian police, and had not been returned, while on ment of . His Government considered that 27 November, fourteen more Thais had been taken into unjustified action a threat to the peace which should Cambodia but subsequently had been permitted to be brought to the attention of all Members of the United return. Thailand considered that normal diplomatic re­ Nations. An attached communication from the Govern­ lations with Cambodia should be resumed at the ambas­ ment of Ca;-t}bodia complained that since 1953, a series sadoriallevel, rather than at the charge d'affaires level, of events had occurred which had caused a progressive as proposed by Cambodia. Thailand had, however, deterioration in relations between the two countries. informed the Cambodian Government that the release If DETECTING Efforts to settle outstanding differences by negotiation and return of the thirty-two Thai nationals forcibly ~R TESTS had been unsuccessful, owing, in Cambodia's view, to taken into Cambodia and detained by the authorities the application by the Thai Government of various there were essential for the restoration of normal rela­ forms of intimidation against Cambodia, including a tionships. Finally, Thailand assured the Government of e report of the continuing press campaign inspired by official or semi­ Cambodia that once those steps had been taken, the e Possibility of official sources in Thailand. In the face of such a situ­ Thai authorities would promptly consider the with­ ~reement on the ation, Cambodia had felt compelled to recall its ambas­ drawal of the precautionary measures which had been ). sador and embassy staff temporarily from Bangkok in taken to ensure the protection of the Thai people. order to preserve its national dignity. Its desire was to maintain friendly relations with Thailand and it would 239. In a United Nations press release issued on never refuse to re-establish normal relations when the 22 December 1958, it was stated that following an time was ripe for doing so. exchange of letters regarding difficulties which had arisen between Cambodia and Thailand, the two Gov­ 238. The representative of Thailand replied to the ernments had invited the Secretary-General to send a Cambodian charges in a letter to the Secretary-General representative to assist them in efforts to find a solution. dated 8 December (S/4126). On the instructions of his In response to that invitation, the Secretary-General Government, he declared thatthe allegations that Thai­ had designated Ambassador Johan Beck-Friis of land had concentrated troops and military equipment Sweden as his representative for that purpose. ~xt of Heads of on the Cambodian frontier were completely untrue. He Ltion of the Suez stated that Thailand was prepared to welcome any 240. In letters dated 6 and 9 February 1959 respec­ ~cretary-General United Nations representative to observe the situation tively (S/4158 and S/4161), the representatives of 3.tion for all the in the border area, and that if, for instance, the Secre­ Thailand and Ca.mbodia transmitted to the Secretary­ given. tary-General should consider the case as falling within General the text of a joint communique issued on the purview of Article 99 of the Charter, his Govern­ 6 February at Bangkok and Phnom-Penh announcing ment would be hapLlY to welcome his representative and that the two Governments, at the suggestion of the to afford him every possible facility to inspect the border Special Representative of the Secretary-General, had area. He added that Thailand had increased police re­ resolved to re-establish diplomatic relations between inforcements along the border in order to prevent the two countries and to return the former ambassadors u!lwan'antable entry and armed raids conducted by to their respective posts on 20 February 1959. Both Cambodia, particularly infiltrations into Thailand by representatives expressed to the Secretary-General the undesirable elements. An attached memorandum from gratitude and appreciation of their Governments for the Government of Thailand replied to a series of the assistance given by the Secretary-General and his LIBYA allegations made in the communication of the Govern­ Special Representative which had led to the solution ment of Cambodia, and went on to charge that Cambo- of the difficulty between the two countries.

;sion to investi- been proposed Chapter 16 1 on the part of QUESTION OF MEASURES TO PREVENT SURPRISE ATTACK ative of Libya ~rnment regard­ he integrity of 241. In accordance with requests of the Governments 10 January 1959 from the Ministry of Foreig-n Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and of the of the USSR to the United States Embassy in the security of its United States of America, the Secretary-General, on USSR concerning the resumption of the Geneva Con­ 5 Janmry 1959, circulated the report of the Conference ference of experts. The letter added that similar notes of Experts for the study of possible measures which had been addressed to the Governments of the United might be helpful in preventing surprise attack and for Kingdom, France, Italy and Canada,13 the preparation of a report therecn to Governments (A/4078, S/4145). l3By a letter dated 22 January 1959 (A/4091), the representa­ 242. By a letter dated 16 January 1959 (S/4149), tive of the l~nited States transmitted the text of a note of 15 January from the United States Embassy in the USSR to the permanent representative of the Union of Soviet the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR concerning the Socialist Republics transmitted the text of a note of problem of minimizing the possibility of surprise attack. 37 I ,..--'''"''''''"''_'__'''''"''''+K'';''''''''''''''C''''' Chapter 17

I, COMMUNICATIONS FROM TIlE REPRESENTATIVES OF TUNISIA AND FRANCE LETTER DATED ] ~ CEYLON, E ;1 i ntAQ, JORDA " 243. In a letter dated 16 February 1959 (S/4163) , ried out by the French forces over Tunisian territory SUDAN, TUNI... addressed to the President of the Security Council, th.· <1n 14 February. However, a convoy of rebels coming representative of Tunisia statd that, on 14 February, from Tunisia had been intercepted on that day by three three French aircraft from Algeria had machine-gunned French aircraft, ten kilometrf's inside Algeria. The 248. By a letter de a gruup of Tunisians participating in a locust control wounded shown to journalists by Tunisian authorities Add. 1), the represel campaign at Alb Arritma, eight kilometres from the on 16 February could therefore not have been victims Ceylon, Ethiopia, the Algcl·;;.m-Tunisian frontier. It was further stated that of an incident in Tunisian territory. Moreover, they Guinea, Indonesia, Ira French military raids from Algeria had been unceasing were all of the male sex, whiie the collecting of locust Libya, 1Iorocco, Nepa both before and since the Sakiet-Sidi·Yousse£ incident eggs Nas normally undertaken by women in the area in Tunisia, the United on 8 ,14 and that the latest incident con­ question. The French Government rejected the Tuni­ Article ~5 paragraph stituted a ftagrant violation of Tunisian air space and sian accusation, as well as the accusations of systematic memorandum in whi a ~erious infringement of Tunisian sovel'eignty which and repeated attacks on Tunisia by French forces from opinion that the Unite threatened peace and security in that part of the world. Algeria. On the other hand, it felt that the incident was ferent to the situatio a further proof of the aid found by the Algerian rebels threat to international 244. In a letter dated 23 February 1959 (S/4166), in Tunisia. the representative of France explained that a detailed inquiry had shown that no air operations had been car- Hlbid., Supplement No. 2, chapLer 3.

Chapter 18

COMMUNICATIONS FROM SAUDI ARABIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

~45. In a letter dated 27 November 1958 (S/4119) under the clear obligation to notify the Security Council addressed to the President of the Security Council, the of the immediate withdrawal of its armed colonial representative of Saudi Arabia submitted for the WIl· forces from Saudi Arabian territory. sideration of the members of the Council charge3 of violation of Saudi Arabian territorial integrity by armeJ 246. On 10 December, the representative of the aggression planned, organized and effected by the United Kingdom addressed a lei~ter (S/4134) to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire­ President of the Security Council expressing regret land. He alleged that early in November, detachments that the Saudi Arabian Government should have made of several hundred United Kingdom colonial forces inaccurate statements about the situation in the Khor operating from the Sheikhdom of Abu Dhabi and led al Oda;d area, which was f' . of the territories of the by British military officers had occupied the area of Sheikhdom of Abu Dhabi, a ;::~ate under the protection Khor al Odaid, south of the Persian Gulf. Despite its of Her Majesty's Government. The letter emphasized policy of seeking peaceful solutions to any international that the Saudi Arabian Government had already been dispute, he declared, Saudi Arabia would not hesitate informed on 19 N"vember that the ruler of Abu Dhabi to take all necessary measures provided for in the had re-established a police post at Khor al Odaid for Charter to protect and preserve its territorial integrity the supervision of fishing in the area, but that there vis-a.-vi. jritish colonialism ill the area. The United were no British officers nor British personnel in the Kingdom, by virtue of its Charter commitment, was Abu Dhabi police.

Chapter 19

COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THE K0REAN QUESTION

247. On 22 , the representative of the man,l;pg General of the military forces made available United States informed the Council (S/4181) that, to tIl( Unified Command by Members of the United effective 1 July 1959, General Carter B. 1\1agruder Nations pursuant to the Council's resolution of 7 July would renlace General George H. Decker as the Com- 1950 (S/1588).

38 I ~--~~------""'--....------_...... Chapter 20 LETI'ER DATED 10 JULY 1959 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF AFGHANISTAN, BURMA, CEYLON, ETHIOPIA, THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA, GHANA, GUINEA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JORDAN, LEBANON, LIBERIA, UBYA, MOROCCO, NEPAL, PAKISTAN, SAUDI ARABIA, rritory AND YEMEN CONCERNING ALGERIA ~oming SUDAN, TUNISIA, THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC y three 1. The 248. By a letter dated 10 July 1959 (S/4195 and infringement of the basic right of self-determination lorities Add. 1), the representatives of Afghanistan, Burma, and constituted a flagrant violation of other fundamen­ I'ictims Ceylon, Ethiopia, the Federation of Malaya, Ghana, tai \uman rights. r, they Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, , locust Libya, l\Iorocco, Nepal, Paki:;tan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, 249. In a letter dated 13 July 1959 (S/4197), the area In Tunisia, the United Arab Republic and Yemen, under representative of France stated that under Article 2, Tuni­ Article ~5 paragraph 1, of the Charter, submitted a paragraph 7, of the Charter, the United Nations was :ematic memorandum in which, inter alia, they expressed the not competent to deal with a matter relating- to French s from opinion that the United Nations could not remain indif­ national sovereignty, and recalled that on 26 :nt was ferent to the situation in Algeria which constituted a the Council had rejected a request that it should include , rebels threat to international peace and security, involved the in its agenda an item concerning Algeria.

:ouncil olonial of the to the regret ~ made ~ Khor of the tection lasized y been Dhabi ~id for t there in the

'ailable United 7 July

39 I , ~ - . ~ . . . '..'" . . .~ . , ..' .

829th APPENDICES

I. Representatives and deputy, alternate and acting representatives accredited to the Security Council

The folkwing representatives and deputy, alternate Italy a ann acting representatives were accredited to the Mr. Egidio Ortona Se.:urity Council during the period covered by the Mr. Eugenio Plaja pr,~sent report: Japan Lrgmtillaa Mr. Koto Matsudaira Dr. Mario Amadeo Mr. Masayoshi Kakitsubo Dr. Constantino Ramos 830th Dr. Raiil Quijano Pa1lama 831st C.lnada Dr. J orge Illueca Mr. Ernesto de la Ossa M,. C. S. A. Ritchie Mr. John W. Holmes Swedenb Mr. John G. H. Halstead Mr. Gunnar V. Jarring Chioo Mr. Claes Carbonnier Dr.Tingfu F. Tsiang T~misiaa Mr. Chiping H. C. Kiang Mr. Mongi Slim Mr. Yu-chi Hsueh Mr. Mahmoud Mestiri Dr. Chun-ming Chang Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics Cololllbia b Mr. Arkady Aleksandrovich Sobolev Dr. AIfonso Anl.ujo Mr. Georgy Petrovich Arkadev Dr. Alberto Zuleta Angel Mr. Kliment Danilovich Levychkin "ranee United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Mr. GuilIaume Georges-Picot Sir Pierson Dixon Mr. Armand Berard Mr. Harold Beeley Mr. Pierre de VaucelIes Ul~ited States of America Iraqb Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge Mr. Mohamed Fadhil JamaIi Mr. lames J. Wadsworth Mr. Abdul Majid Abbas Mr. J ames W. Barco Mr. Hashim Jawad Mr. Kadhim M. Khalaf aTerm of office began on 1 January 1959. Mr. Ismat T. Kittani bTerm of office ended on 31 December 1958.

ll. Presidents of the Security Council

The following representatives held the office of Presi­ Tunisia dent of the Security Council during the period covered Mr. Mongi Slim (1 to 31 January 1959) by the present report: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Colombia Mr. Arkady Aleksandrovich Sobolev (1 to 28 February 1959) Dr. Alfonso Anl.ujo (16 to 31 July 1958) France United Kingdom of GreM Britain and Northern Ireland Mr. Guillaume Georges-Picot (1 to 31 August 1958) Sir Pierson Dhwn (1 to 31 March 1959) Iraq United States of America Mr. Hashim Jawad (1 to 30 September 1958) Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge (l to 30 April 1959) Japan Argentina, Mr. Koto Matsudaira (1 to 31 October 1958) Dr. Mario Amadeo (1 to 31 May 1959) Panama Canada Dr. Jorge Illueca (1 to30November 1958) Mr. C. S. A. Ritchie (l to 30 June 1959) Sweden China Mr. Gunnar V. Jarring (1 to 31 December 1958) Dr. Tingfu F. Tsiang (1 to 15 July 1959) 40 I ;,;,~n~,~".",y:;:".·",·.."'''''''i4J''_._.rnnlll.'''_lnllil''_··''iI7 1flIIII1!1V_rIlllTlll\lm.·.t.tlll_.lfrM.l~"_Ilfa iIi1ii • Ill. Meetings of the Security Council during the period from 16 July 1958 to 15 July 1959

Meeting Subject Date Meeting Subject Date July 1958 the Security Council concern­ S29th Letter dated 22 May 1958 from 16 ing: "Complaint by the Hashe­ the representative of Lebanon mite Kingdom of Jordan of addressed to the President of interference in its domestic the Security Council concern­ affairs by the United Arab y Council ing: "Complaint by Lebanon Republic" of a situation arising from the 832nd Ditto 17 intervention of the United 833rd Ditto 18 Arab Republic in the internal affairs of Lebanon, the contin­ 834th Ditto 18 uance of which is likely to 835th Ditto 21 endanger the maintenance of 836th Ditto 21 international peace and secu­ 837th Ditto 22 rity" August 1958 830th Ditto 16 838th Dittc. 7 831st Letter dated 22 May 1958 from 17 the representative of Lebanon 839th Report of the Security Council 28 addressed to the President of (private) to the General Assembly the Security Council concern­ ing: "Complaint by Lebanon November 1958 of a situation arising from the 840th The date of election to fill a 25 intervention of the United vacancy in the International Arab Republic in the internal Court of Justice affairs of Lebanon, the contin­ December 1958 uance of which is likely to 841st The Palestine question 8 endanger the maintenance of international peace and secu­ 842nd Admission of new Members 9 rity" 843rd Admission of new Members 9 Letter dated 17 July 1958 from 844th The Palestine question 15 the representative of Jordan January 1959 addressed to the President of 845th The Palestine question 30

~land

IV. Representatives, Chairmen and Principal Secretaries of the Military Sta1l Committee (16 July 1958 to 15 July 1959)

A. REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH SERVICE

Period of service from 16 July 1958 CHINA Lieutenant Gen. Ho Shai-lai, Chinese Army 16 July 1958 to present time Captain Wu Chia-hsun, Chinese Navy 16 July 1958 to present time FRANCE General de Brigade J. B. de Bary, French Army 16 July 1958 to 14 March 1959 Lieutenant Colonel H. Houel, French Army 14 March 1959 to present time Capitaine de Corvette S. Petrochilo, French Navy 16 July 1958 to 11 August 1958 Contre-Amiral P. Poncet, French Navy 11 August 1958 to present time General de Division Aerienne J. Bezy, French Air Force 11 August 1958 to present time UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ruary 1959) Major General 1. M. Saraev, Soviet Army 16 J:lly 1958 to 11 August 1958 'and Lieutenant General V. A. DUbovik, Soviet Army 11 August 1958 to present time Colonel A. M. Kuchumov, USSR Air Force 16 July 1958 to present time Lieutenant Commander Y. D. Kvashnin, USSR Navy 16 July 1958 to present time UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Vice-Admiral Sir Robert Elkins, Royal Navy 16 July 1958 to 30 September 1958 Vice-Admiral G. Thistleton-Smith, Royal Navy 30 September 1958 to present time Air Vice-Marshal W. C. Sheen, Royal Air Force 16 July 1958 to present time Major General J. 'J". Carter, British Army 16 July 1958 to present time UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Lieutenant General B. M. Bryan, US Army 16 July 1958 to present time Vice-Admiral F. W. McMahon, US Navy 16 July 1958 to 31 December 1958 Vice-Admiral T. S. Combs, US Navy 1 January 1959 to present time Lieutenant General W. E. Hall, US Air Force 16 July 1958 to present time 41 I B. LIST OF CHAIRMEN (16 July 1958 to 15 July 1959)

Meeting Date Chairman Delegatim 3-t3rd 17 July 1958 Major General I. M. Saraev, Soviet Army USSR 3-t4th 31 July 1958 Major General I. M. Saraev, Soviet Army USSR 345th 14 Aug. 1958 Vice-Admiral Sir Robert Elkins, Royal Navy United Kingdom 346th 28 Aug. 1958 Air Vice-Marshal W. C. Sheen, Royal Air Force United Kingdor:J. 347th 11 Sept. 195R Lieutenant General B. M. Bryan, US Army United States i 3.f8th 25 Sept. 1958 Lieutenant General B. M. Bryan, US Army United States 349th 9 Oct. 1958 Captain \-Vu Chia-hsun, Chinese Navy China 350th 23 Oct. 1958 Captain \Vu Chia-hsun, Chinese Navy China 351st 6 Nov. 1958 General de Brigade J. B. de Bary, French Army France 352nd 20 Nov. 1958 General de Division Aerienne J. Bezy, French Air Force France 353rd 4 Dec. 1958 Lieutenant General V. A. Dubovik, Soviet Army USSR 354th 18 Dec. 1958 Lieutenant General V. A. Dubovik, Soviet Army USSR 355th 31 Dec. 1958 Lieutenant General V. A. Dubovik, Soviet Army USSR 356th 15 Jan. 1959 Vice-Admiral G. Thistleton-Smith, Royal Navy United Kingdom 357th 29 Jan. 1959 Air Vice-1Iarshal W. C. Sheen, Royal Air Force United Kingdom 358th 12 Feb. 1959 Lieutenant General B. M. Bryan. US Army United States 359th 26 Feb. 1959 Vice-Admiral T. S. Combs, US Navy United States 360th 12 1Iar. 1959 Captain \Vu Chia-hsun, Chinese Navy China 361st 26 Mar. 1959 Captain \Vu Chia-hsun, Chinese Navy China 362nd 9 Apr. 1959 Contre-Amiral P. Poncet, French Navy France 363rd 23 Apr. 1959 Contre-Amiral P. Poncet, French Navy France 364th 7 May 1959 Lieutenant General V. A. Dubovik, Soviet Army USSR 365th 21 May 1959 Lieutenant General V. A. Dubovik, Soviet Army USSR 366th 4 June 1959 Vice-Admiral G. Thistleton-Smith, Royal Navy United Kingdom 367th 18 June 1959 Major General}. N. Carter, British Army United Kingdom 368th 2 July 1959 Vice-Admiral T. S. Combs, US Navy United States

C. LIST OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARIES (16 July 1958 to 15 July 1959)

Meeting Date Principal Secretary Delegation 343rd 17 July 1958 Colonel V. A. Sazhin, Soviet Army USSR 344th 31 July 1958 Colonel V. A. Sazhin, Soviet Army USSR 345th 14 Aug. 1958 Captain 1. G. Mason, Royal Navy United Kingdom 346th 28 Aug. 1958 Captain 1. G. Mason, Royal Navy United Kingdom 347th 11 Sept. 1958 Colonel A. J. Stuart, USMC United States 348th 25 Sept. 1958 Colonel A. }. Stuart, USMC United States 349th 9 act. 1958 Lieutenant Colonel J. Soong, Chinese Army China 350th 23 act. 1958 Lieutenant Colonel}. Soong, Chinese Army China 351st 6 Nov. 1958 Capitaine de Corvette S. Petrocbilo, French Navy France 352nd 20 Nov. 1958 Capitaine de Corvette S. Petrochilo, French Navy France 353rd 4 D(,~. 1958 Colonel V. A. Sazhin, Soviet Army USSR 354th 18 Dec. 1958 Colonel V. A. Sazhin, Soviet Army USSR 355th 31 Dec. 1958 Colonel V. A. Sazhin, Soviet Army USSR 356th 15 Jan. 1959 Lieutenant Colonel R. B. Penford, Brit:sh Army United Kingdom Iil 357th 29 Jan. 1959 Captain I. G. Mason, Royal Navy United Kingdom 358th 12 Feb. 1959 Colonel P. Shepley, US Air Force United States 359th 26 Feb. 1959 Colonel P. Shepley, US Air Force United States i 360th 12 Mar. 1959 Lieutenant Colonel J. Soong, Chinese Army China 361st 26 Mar. 1959 Lieutenant Colonel J. Soong, Chinese Army China 362nd 9 Apr. 1959 Capitainf' de Corvette S. Petrochilo, French Nav)" France t 363rd 23 Apr. 1959 Capitaine de Corvette S. Petrochih, French Navy France 364th 7 May 1959 Colonel V. A. Sazhin, Soviet Army USSR 365th 21 May 1959 Colonel V. A. Sazhin, Soviet Army USSR 366th 4 June 1959 Captain I. G. Mason, Royal Navy United Kingdom 367~h 18 June 1959 Captain I. G. Mason, Royal Navy United Kingdom , 368th 2 July 1959 Colonel P. Shepley, US Air Force United States J

42