150 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of international peace and security 4. Expression of concern over non-implementation of specific (iv) Reports by the Se cretary-General concerning Yemen: measures requested by the Security Council. Decision of 11 June 1963 (S/5331), para. 3. (i) The Palestine question: (v) The situation in territories in Africa under Portuguese Decision of 9 April 1962 (S/51 ll), preamble. administrauon: (ii) Question of race conflict in South Africa: Decision of 31 July 1963 (S/5380), para. 7. Decision of 4 December 1963 (S/5471), preamble. Decision of 11 December 1963 (S/.5481), para. 7. 5. Deprecation of continued refusal to implement the resolutions (vi) Question of race conflict in South Africa: of the Security Council Decision of 7 August 1963 (S/5386), para. 4. (i) The situation in territories in Africa under Portuguese Decision of 4 December 1963 (S/5471), para. 8. administration: 2. From the subsidiary organs. Decision of 31 July 1963 (S/5380), para. 3. (i) The situation in Angola: (ii) Question of race conflict in South Africa: Decision of 9 June 1961 (S/4835), para. 5. Decision of 4 December 1963 (S/5471), para. 3. (ii) The Pale she question: 31. Endorsement of reports of the Secretary-General. Decision of 9 April 1962 (S/511 1), para. 8. (i) The situation in the Republic of the Congo: 3. From regional agencies or arrangements. Decision of 22 July 1960 (S/4405), para. 3. Complaint by Cuba (letter of 11 July 1960): (ii) Reports by the Se cretary-General concerning Yemen: Decision of 19 July 1960 (S/4395), preamble and para. 1. Decision of 11 June 1963 (S/S331), preamble. B. Provision by express decision to consider the matter further. N. Request for assistance from the specialized agencies of the Complaint by Tunisia: L’ni ted h’ations. Decision of 22 July 1961 (S/4882), para. 2. The situation in the Republic of the Congo: C. Statement by the President that the Council would remain seized Decision of 22 July 1960 (S/4405), para. 4. of the quesuon. 0. Finding of a violation of a Security Council cease-fire injunction. u>Complaint by Kuwait: The Palestine question: Decision: President’s statement of 7 July 1961. Decision of 9 April 1902 (S/5111), para. 3. (ii) Complaint by Tunisia: P. Expression of concern over military incursions into foreign Decision: President’s statement of 22 July 1961. territories. (iii) Complaint by Cuba (letter of 21 November 1961): Complaint by Senegal: Decision: President’s statement of 28 November 1961. Decision of 24 April 1963 (S/5293), para. 1. W) Complaints by Cuba, USSR and US.\ (letters dated 22-23 October 1962): VIII. MEASURES TO Eh’SURE FURTHER CONSIDERATIOK AND TO Decision: President’s statement of 25 October 1962. ASCERTAIN COMPLIANCE w Complaint by Haiti: ( -.- Decision: President’; statement of 9 &lay 1963. A. Request for information on the progress of settlement 1. From the Secretary-General. IX. h!EASURES 1s COMEXIOK WITH THE I&ABILITY OF THE (i) Complai nt concerning South Africa (letter datti 25 March SECURITY COUNCIL TO EXERCISE ITS RESPOMIBILITY 1960): FOR THE !vtW’Z’EKAKCE OF II’iTERKATIONAL PEACE AND Decision cf 1 April 1960 (S/4300), para. 5. SECURITY (ii) The situa tion in the Republic of the Congo: Decision of 14 July 1960 (S/4387), para. 3. A. Convocation of an emergency special session of the General Decision of 22 July 1960 (S/4405), para. 5. Assembly under the provisions of General Assembly resolution Decision of 9 August 1960 (S/4426), para. 6. 377 (v> of 3 November 1950. (iii) Compla int by Senegal: The situation in the Republic of the Congo: Decision of 24 April 1963 (S/5293), para. 3. Decision of 17 September 1960 (S/4526). PART II THE PALESTINE QUESTION the representatives of Israel and the United Arab Republic were invited to take a place at the Council Decision of 30 January 1959 (84Sthmeeting):Adjourn- tab1e.a ment The representative of Israel* stated that the attack By letter9 dated 26 January 1959, the permanent had been a climax in a series of incidents, about representative of Israel brought to the attention of which in each instance complaints had been lodged the Security Council “the renewal of aggression by by Israel with the Mixed Armistice Commission. The United Arab Republic armed forces on the Israel- continuation of constant firing by Syrian forces into Syrian border” and requested that a special meeting Israel Territory was likely to endanger international of the Council be convened to consider the matter. peace and security and therefore fell clearly within It was stated in the letter that a series of incidents, the purvieif of Article 34 of the Charter. Further, especially the latest one at Ma’ale Habashan, inwhich Article 35 conferred upon each Member State the one shepherd was killed by Syrian soldiers, consti- right to bring such matters to the Security Council. tuted “grave violations of the Israel-Syrian General Armistice Agreement and of the Charter of the The representative of the United Arab Republic* United Nations, threatening peace and security”. contended that under article VII of the General The Government of Israel believed that it was the Armistice -agreement an incident of the kind referred duty of the United Kations under the Charter to to by the representative of Israel should be first bring about an immediate cessation of these acts dealt with by the Mixed Armistice Commission, the of aggression. body which had been established by agreement between At the 845th meeting on 30 January 1959, the the two parties under the auspices of the Security Securitv Council included the Israel complaint in Council, and not by the Security Council itself. ” Israel’s recourse to the Council with a purely local its agenda. Following the adoption of the agenda, incident was in his view a further evidence of its in- Y!/ S/4151 and Corr.1, OR., 14th year, Suppl. for Jan.-June 1959, PP 3-4. 2 845th meeting: para. 32. Part II 151 tention to persist in its refusal to recognize the At the 947th meeting of the Security Council on 6 functions of the Mixed Armistice Commission, April 1961, the provisional agenda listed under the general heading “The Palestine question” included: The representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, France, Italy, Canada, China “Letter dated 1 April 1961 from the permanent and Panama expressed the view that both parties representative of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan should observe strictly the provisions of the General addressed to the President of the Security Council Armistice Agreement, show good faith and respect (S/4777) .” for the Agreement by strict orders to the military The agenda was adoptedY and the Security Council commanders on both sides to prohibit firing except considered the question at its 947th to 949th meetings in cases of obvious self-defenc?. The representative between 6 and 11 April 1961. The representatives of of the USSR held that Israel was disregarding pro- Jordan and Israel were invited to take pert in the cedures laid clown in the Armistice Agreement and discussions. maintained that it was necessary for the Council to indicate to the Government of Israel the need to At the 947th meeting, the representative of Israel,* abide strictly by the provisions of the Armistice in referring to the Jordanian complaint, viewedit as a Agreement,g minor matter of a technical character, which in no sense involved a threat to international peace and The Council adjourned the meeting.2 wliich should never have been brought before the Security Council, He discounted the assertion that the ceremonial parade of military equipment without Decision of 11 April 1961 (949th meeting): ammunition could even constitute na formal breach of 0i Endorsing the decision of the Jordan-Israel annex II to the General Armistice Agreement? If the Mixed Armistice Commission of 20 March 1961; Council really wished to concern itself with the func- (ii) Urging Israel to compl Y wi’,%I this decision; tioning of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, (iii) Requesting the members -of the Mixed A finis tice there could be more far-reaching issues than that Commission to co-operate so as to ensure that just raised. He concltided that on the one.hanflihe the General Armistice Agreement will be com- Jordanians refused implementation of the essential plied with 1 clauses of the Armistice Agreement and on the other they came to the Council on matters of no real By letter g dated 1 Apr’ 11 1961, the permanent repre- significance. w sentative of Jordan informed the President of the At the 948th meeting on 10 April 1961, the repre- Security Council that the Israel authorities were senkdives of the IYited Arab Republic and Ceylon sub- contemplating holding on 20 April 1961, in the Israel- mitted a draft resolutionuj under which the Security occupied part of the Holy City of Jerusalem, a military Council would: (1) endorse the decision of the Mixed parade in which Israel troops, heavy armament and Armistice Commission of 20 March 1961; and (2) heavy war equipment would be displayed and reviewed. urge Israel to comply with this decision. The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had submitted a complaint to the Jordan-Israel Mixed At the 949th meeting on 11 April 1961, the repre- Armistice Commission which, on the basis of its find- sentative of the United States introduced an amend- ings, had decided on 20 March 1961 that “this act by mentw to the joint draft resolution which was Israel is a breach of the General Armistice Agree- adopted by 7 votes in favour and none against, with ment.” It had also condemned this act by Israel and 4 abstenti0ns.w .