網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

37. CALL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF MARCH 30, 1955: Letter From the President of the Security Council to Each Member, June 7, 19551

EXCELLENCY: As President of the Security Council this month it is incumbent upon me to bring to the attention of the members of the Council my concern over the situation created by the continued incidents along the Gaza Demarcation Line and the difficulties which are being encountered by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization [Maj. Gen. E. L. M. Burns] in carrying out the Council's unanimous resolution of March 30, 1955. You will recall that this resolution called upon the Governments of Egypt and Israel to cooperate with the Chief of Staff with regard to his proposals directed toward preservation of security in that area.

It is to be hoped that the Security Council resolution will be implemented promptly with the full cooperation of the Governments of Egypt and Israel. If this hope is not realized, however, and General Burns does not receive the full cooperation of the parties concerned, it may be necessary to call a meeting of the Council for the specific purpose of considering the status of the implementation of the resolution of March 30 and such further assistance and support to the Chief of Staff as may be necessary.

This letter is being addressed to each member of the Security Council. Copies are being sent to the representatives of Egypt and Israel and the Secretary-General.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

38. RENEWED APPEAL FOR ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN COOPERATION WITH THE TRUCE SUPERVISION ORGANIZATION: United Nations Security Council Resolution, September 8, 19553

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolution of 30 March 1955,

Having received the report of the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization,5

1 U.N. doc. S/3406, June 7, 1955. Text is also found in Department of State Bulletin, June 20, 1955, pp. 1016-1017. The letter was sent by Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge in his capacity as President of the Security Council for the month of June. For a statement by the temporary U.S. Representative in the Security Council on Apr. 19 on this matter, see ibid., May 23, 1955, pp. 860–861. For background discussion see Report of the Security Council to the General Assembly Covering the Period from 16 July 1954 to 15 July 1955 (A/2935), pp. 14–15. 2 Supra.

U.N. doc. S/3432, Sept. 7, 1955. This resolution was unanimously adopted by the Security Council Sept. 8, 1955; Department of State Bulletin, Sept. 19, 1955, p. 459. See also Ambassador Lodge's statement of Sept. 8, 1955; ibid., pp. 458-459.

Supra, doc. 36.

U.N. doc. S/3430.

Noting with grave concern the discontinuance of the talks initiated by the Chief of Staff in accordance with the above-mentioned resolution,

Deploring the recent outbreak of violence in the area along the Armistice Demarcation Line established between Egypt and Israel on 24 February 1949,1

1. Notes with approval the acceptance by both parties of the appeal of the Chief of Staff for an unconditional cease-fire;

2. Calls upon both parties forthwith to take all steps necessary to bring about order and tranquility in the area, and in particular to desist from further acts of violence and to continue the cease-fire in full force and effect;

3. Endorses the view of the Chief of Staff that the armed forces of both parties should be clearly and effectively separated by measures such as those which he has proposed;

4. Declares that freedom of movement must be afforded to United Nations Observers in the area to enable them to fulfill their functions; 5. Calls upon both parties to appoint representatives to meet with the Chief of Staff and to co-operate fully with him to these ends; and 6. Requests the Chief of Staff to report to the Security Council on the action taken to carry out this Resolution.

39. UNITED STATES SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT: Statement by the Department of State, November 5, 1955 2

During recent weeks, especially during the last few days, the United States has noted, with deep concern, the increasing tempo of hostilities between Israel and Egypt. According to our information there have been violations of the General Armistice Agreement by both Israel and Egypt which have led to bloodshed and loss of life. The United States deplores resort to force for the settlement of disputes. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and General [E. L. M.] Burns have put forward proposals to Israel and Egypt which are designed to ease the present situation along their common border. The United States strongly supports the United Nations efforts to achieve settlement by peaceful means, especially the current proposals of General Burns, who is the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization.

3

Recent reports have also been received that United Nations. observers who are under General Burns' direction have been prevented from carrying out their assigned functions. The United

1 See Armistice Agreement of Feb. 24, 1949, supra, pp. 698–707.

2 Department of State Bulletin, Nov. 14, 1955, p. 786. The statement was issued after the Ambassadors of Israel (Abba Eban) and Egypt (Ahmed Hussein) had called on Assistant Secretary George V. Allen, at the request of the State Department.

3 See U.N. doc. S/3430.

States continues to believe that these United Nations observers should have full liberty to perform their peaceful functions.

Assistant Secretary Allen informed the Ambassadors of Israel and Egypt of the attitude of the United States and asked for information with respect to their Governments' intentions regarding these matters.

Shipping Restrictions in the Suez Canal

40. EGYPTIAN RESTRICTIONS ON ISRAELI SHIPPING IN THE SUEZ CANAL: United Nations Security Council Resolution, September 1, 19511

The Security Council

1. Recalling that in its resolution of 11 August 1949 (S/1376), relating to the conclusion of Armstice Agreements between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States 2 it drew attention to the pledges in these Agreements "against any further acts of hostility between the Parties".

2. Recalling further that in its resolution of 17 November 1950 (S/1907 and Corr. 1), it reminded the States concerned that the Armistice Agreements to which they are parties contemplate "the return of permanent peace in Palestine", and therefore urged them and the other States in the area to take all such steps as will lead to the settlement of the issues between them,

3. Noting the report of the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization to the Security Council of 12 June 1951 (S/2194),

4. Further noting that the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization recalled the statement of the senior Egyptian delegate in Rhodes on 13 January 1949, to the effect that his delegation was "inspired with every spirit of co-operation, conciliation and a sincere desire to restore peace in Palestine", and that the Egyptian Government has not complied with the earnest plea of the Chief of Staff made to the Egyptian delegate on 12 June 1951, that it desist from the present practice of interfering with the passage through the Suez Canal of goods destined for Israel,

5. Considering that since the armistice regime, which has been in existence for nearly two and a half years, is of a permanent character, neither party can reasonably assert that it is actively a belligerent or requires to exercise the right of visit, search and seizure for any legitimate purpose of self-defence,

6. Finds that the maintenance of the practice mentioned in paragraph 4 above is inconsistent with the objectives of a peaceful settle

U.N. doc. S/INF/6, Mar. 4, 1952, pp. 13–15.

2 For the texts of the armistice agreements, see supra, pp. 698-724.

ment between the parties and the establishment of a permanent peace in Palestine set forth in the Armistice Agreement,

7. Finds further that such practice is an abuse of the exercise of the right of visit, search and seizure,

8. Further finds that that practice cannot in the prevailing circumstances be justified on the ground that it is necessary for self-defence,

9. And further noting that the restrictions on the passage of goods through the Suez Canal to Israel ports are denying to nations at no time connected with the conflict in Palestine valuable supplies required for their economic reconstruction, and that these restrictions together with sanctions applied by Egypt to certain ships which have visited Israel ports represent unjustified interference with the rights of nations to navigate the seas and to trade freely with one another, including the Arab States and Israel,

10. Calls upon Egypt to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods through the Suez Canal wherever bound and to cease all interference with such shipping beyond that essential to the safety of shipping in the Canal itself and to the observance of the international conventions in force.

41. OBLIGATION OF EGYPT TO COMPLY WITH THE SECURITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION OF 1951: Statement by the United States Representative at the United Nations1 Before the Security Council, March 25, 1954 2

The issue before us is the compliance of a valued member of the United Nations with a decision taken 21⁄2 years ago by the highest body of this organization charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. After examining the facts and arguments presented by both sides, this Council adopted a resolution on September 1, 1951,3 which continues to apply to the facts as we have heard them relating to the complaint now under consideration. The resolution of 1951 was adopted after the parties themselves had entered into a general armistice agreement which had as one of its principal purposes the promotion of permanent peace in Palestine. The resolution stems from that agreement. The basic issues are the same as those considered then, and in our opinion, nothing has happened since 1949, when the Armistice Agreement was signed, or since 1951, when the resolution was adopted, to alter their validity or significance to the peace of the area.

1 Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.

2 Department of State Bulletin, Apr. 12, 1954, pp. 569-570. For background discussion see Report of the Security Council to the General Assembly Covering the Period from 16 July 1953 to 15 July 1954 (A/2712), pp. 29-37, and United States Participation in the United Nations: Report by the President to the Congress for the Year 1954 (Department of State publication 5769; 1955), pp. 74–76.

3 Supra.

For the text of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice agreement of Feb. 24, 1949, see supra, pp. 698-707.

Throughout the history of the Palestine Question the United Nations has sought a peaceful, just, and equitable settlement of the many complicated problems arising out of the Palestine conflict. The decisions of the various organs of the United Nations have not always satisfied our own views 100 percent. But we have consistently sought to respect and give effect to the combined judgment which those decisions represent. We, for our part, feel that the parties directly concerned in these questions have an equal duty to respect and make every reasonable effort to give effect to the combined judgment of the United Nations, whether expressed in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, or other competent organs. We must say frankly that the desire of the interested parties to do so has not always been apparent. If, disregarding the collective efforts of the United Nations, the parties bring the house down upon themselves, it is they who will suffer most. This may seem like a strong statement, but candor compels it.

When the United Nations was established, such situations as these were the reason why we combined together to pool some of our resources and to subject some of our interests to the judgment of the majority. It seems to us that the parties to the Palestine Question are losing sight of the immense value to themselves that this process represents. None of us can stand alone; disregard of the Council's view in one instance encourages recalcitrance in another. The whole fabric of international cooperation inevitably suffers. Thus, to repeat, the question before us is one of compliance with a decision of the United Nations. That decision was based on several important considerations, one of which was that, and I quote, "neither party can reasonably assert that it is actively a belligerent or requires to exercise the right of visit, search and seizure for any legitimate purpose of selfdefense."

In our opinion, this principle is equally applicable to the Suez Canal and to any waters outside the Canal. This principle and the decision. of the Council in its resolution of 1951 should be applied by the parties themselves through the Mixed Armistice Commission which they themselves set up. Differences arising between the parties under the Armistice Agreement should always, in our opinion, be handled as fully as possible in the first instance by the Mixed Armistice machinery. An exception to this rule could weaken the effectiveness of that machinery. We believe that the Mixed Armistice Commission, in considering the specific complaint with respect to actions in the Gulf of Aqaba, must be bound not only by the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement, but should act also in the light of paragraph 5 of the resolution of September 1, 1951.

We therefore fully support the draft resolution presented to this Council by New Zealand. We hope that the members of the Council will likewise give it their full support in the knowledge that there is involved here the all-important question of peace and security in the Near East. The representative of Egypt, in the statement of his Government's viewpoint presented to us at our meeting on March 12,

1 U. N. doc. S/3188/Corr. 1, Mar. 19, 1954.

• Mahmoud Azmi, permanent representative of Egypt to the United Nations.

« 上一頁繼續 »