501.A Summaries/12–147: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
1274.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
At the outset,1 Aranha asked for reports on measures taken since the previous day to promote agreement. Chamoun (Lebanon) speaking on behalf of all the Arab Delegations, said the Arabs were ready, “as ever”, to listen, study, and discuss “any proposals for conciliation, which were likely to offer a reasonable and just solution.” They would oppose, however, any solutions the implementation of which would involve force or threat of force. The Arab Delegations had evolved the following general principles which they felt ought to serve as basis for a compromise: 1) a federal independent state by Aug. 1; 2) to consist of a federal government with Arab and Jewish cantons; 3) boundaries of cantons to include fewest possible Arab and Jewish [Page 1294] minorities; 4) the population of Palestine to elect by direct universal suffrage a constituent assembly to draft constitution of the future federal state—the assembly being composed of all elements of population in proportion to the number of citizens; 5) the assembly, in defining powers of government organs and relations with cantons, to be guided by model of US and its relations with its states; 6) the constitution to provide for protection of holy places, freedom of access, religion, etc.
US finds Arab proposal not conciliatory.
The time for conciliation would come once decision had been taken and both parties faced the hard facts, and not before, Thors (Iceland) said. Johnson thought the conditions outlined by the Arabs did not fulfill the description of the conciliatory proposals envisaged by France. No conciliatory offer was now before the GA, since Lebanon’s statement had merely resurrected the minority UNSCOP recommendations, he added.
Adl (Iran) said the “Arab world’s” desire for conciliation could be seen in the Lebanese statement, and asked for “a reasonable delay”—an adjournment of a few weeks during which time the Ad Hoc Committee might reconsider the question. Aranha asked for this proposal in writing. El Khouri (Syria) also urged exploration of possible conciliatory possibilities. He quoted Faisal’s (Saudi Arabia) answer to Evatt (Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee), expressing readiness to meet with Secretary Marshall, and said no reply had then been received from Evatt.
While awaiting translation of Iran’s proposal, to make a ruling possible, Aranha called on the last speaker, Gromyko (USSR). He declared that the Lebanese and Syrian proposals introduced nothing new; that the unitary plan they propounded had already been rejected after careful study; and that partition should be voted upon immediately.
Iran proposes renewed Committee study.
The Iranian resolution, as presented in writing, called for adjournment until Jan. 15; invited renewed Ad Hoc Committee study, taking into account the Lebanese declaration; and asked the SYG to submit the Committee’s report to the GA by Jan. 31. Aranha ruled it was a new resolution, which could not be considered a motion to adjourn debate, and which could not be voted on until previous resolutions had been ballotted upon. Chamoun, stating that the Ad Hoc Committee had done nothing about the unanimous recommendations in the UNSCOP report, thought these should be voted on first. Aranha ruled these were embodied in the reports of both Subcommittees, and required no special vote.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Of the meeting of the General Assembly on November 29.↩