Editorial Note
In a statement before the Security Council on March 2, Ambassador Austin made known that the United States would not support the Belgian amendment. At one point, in discussing the United States draft resolution, he noted that “a vote for paragraph 1 would be a vote for partition as a solution of the Palestine question. The General Assembly voted for partition as a solution of the Palestine question. The United States voted for that solution, and still supports it. As we have stated before, the United States supports the General Assembly plan of partition as the framework of implementation by pacific, means.” He concluded his remarks by stating that “Taken altogether, paragraph 1 of the United States draft resolution means that the Security Council will do everything it can under the Charter to give effect [Page 676] to the recommendation of the General Assembly.” The full text of Ambassador Austin’s statement is printed in SC, 3rd yr., Nos. 16–35, pages 398–401.
The British spokesman, Mr. Creech Jones, announced that his Government would not take part in the committee proposed by the two draft resolutions, would not vote for either and would not enter into any new or extended commitment in regard to Palestine. He concluded by stating that “the date of termination of our responsibility is irrevocably fixed.” (Ibid., pages 402–405)
Soviet Representative Gromyko concluded the discussion on March 2 by announcing his agreement in principle that the five permanent members of the Security Council should consult on the Palestine situation. His position, however, was that they hold direct consultations rather than through a committee, which he said, would only complicate and delay settlement of the question. He noted also that he had no objection to paragraph 1 of the United States draft resolution (ibid., pages 405–407).