Statement by the Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Johnson)1
Mr. Johnson (United States of America) expressed agreement with the statement made by the Chairman of Sub-Committee 1 that the plan presented by the Sub-Committee was legal under the Charter. There was nothing in the Charter which prevented an immediate transition from a Class A mandate to independence. Under the proposals of Sub-Committee 1, the work of the United Nations would be of short duration, with the exception of its supervision of Jerusalem. The role of the United Nations would be to assist in the actual transfer of authority from the Mandatory Power to the independent States. In practice, the United Nations Commission, while retaining the responsibility, [Page 1279] would have to transfer the practical duties of administration immediately to the provisional councils of government. It was not contemplated that there would be a gap during which there would be no effective governmental authority.
A most difficult situation had been created by the declaration of the Mandatory Power that it could not take part in the implementation of a plan which did not have the approval of the two peoples of Palestine, a condition impossible of fulfilment. He could not agree with the statement of the representative of New Zealand that the Mandatory Power was being given the sole responsibility for implementation. The members of Sub-Committee 1, with very desultory assistance from the United Kingdom delegation, had endeavoured to avoid that situation. They had been assured that the Mandatory Power would not prevent the carrying out of the implementation programme.
The Mandatory Power had requested the United Nations to make recommendations for the future government of Palestine and had unilaterally declared that it was relinquishing its responsibility. Hence any legal objections to the action of the General Assembly must be formal in character. The United States delegation would support the proposals of Sub-Committee 1 which, in its view, met the request of the Mandatory Power.
In formulating proposals for the implementation of the majority plan contained in the report of the Special Committee, members of Sub-Committee 1 had reached unanimity on every point. It was the earnest hope of the United States delegation that a large majority of the Members of the United Nations would approve the plan of the Sub-Committee and co-operate in its implementation. The plan was sufficiently flexible to afford adjustment to any situation which might confront the commission or the joint economic board in Palestine. It offered protection for the Holy Places and religious interests of the three great religions.
The United Nations was the proper forum for the solution of the Palestine problem. Those Governments which supported partition, realizing its imperfections but nevertheless believing in its justice and workability, would contribute to the solution of one of the most difficult political problems in the world. In the view of the United States delegation, no Member of the United Nations would attempt to defy the decision of the United Nations. In that sense, the greatest test of its integrity was being offered to the United Nations.
The proposal of the Jewish Agency met the objections which the United States delegation had voiced to Sub-Committee 1 regarding the uneven division of territory, and the United States reservations on the question were accordingly withdrawn. Mr. Johnson would submit [Page 1280] a formal amendment to the proposals of the Sub-Committee embodying the territorial changes suggested by the Jewish Agency.
In conclusion, he urged support of the partition plan which, despite its unavoidable imperfections, offered the most practicable and just solution.
- Made before the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question during the afternoon of November 22; reprinted from GA (II), Ad Hoc Committee, p. 168.↩