Editorial Note
The Ad Hoc Political Committee of the General Assembly, on December 7, began consideration of the Special Report of the Trusteeship Council on the Jerusalem question (see footnote 1, page 903). Draft resolutions were submitted to the Committee by the Swedish and Belgian Representatives. The General Assembly released the texts of the drafts as A/AC.38/L.63 and A/AC.38/L.71, respectively.
The Swedish proposal, dated December 5, called for the United Nations presence in Jerusalem to center on the protection of, and free access to, the Holy Places in the person of a United Nations Commissioner, Jurisdiction over Jerusalem was to be given to the States concerned, subject to the powers of the Commissioner in connection with the Holy Places.
The Belgian proposal, submitted to the Committee on December 12, provided for the appointment of four persons by the Trusteeship Council to study, in consultation with the Governments exercising de facto control over the Holy Places and with other concerned groups, methods of ensuring effective protection of the Holy Places under United Nations auspices. The proposal also called on the States concerned to cooperate fully in giving effect to the resolution.
The United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay, on December 13, submitted an amendment to the Swedish draft resolution which provided for a United Nations Representative to represent the interests of the United Nations in Jerusalem and to make recommendations regarding the Jerusalem question. Israel and Jordan were called upon to cooperate fully with the United Nations Representative. The amendment envisaged subsequent decisions by the United Nations regarding the interests of the international community in the Jerusalem area. [Page 1072] The General Assembly released the text of the amendment as A/AC.38/L.73/Rev. 2. The texts of the Swedish draft resolution and of its amendment are also printed in United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifth Session, Annexes, Agenda Item 20 (hereinafter identified as GA (V), Annexes (20)), pages 2–6.
The Swedish draft resolution encountered great opposition at the meetings of the Ad Hoc Political Committee. The Brazilian spokesman, for instance, in his remarks before the Committee on December 12, stated that while decision of the General Assembly might be modified, he was of the opinion that the refusal of certain States to comply with those decisions should not force the Assembly to revise them. He deemed the Swedish proposal tantamount to a retreat from the principle of internationalization and constituted a series of concessions to the Israeli and Jordanian points of view (United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifth Session, Ad Hoc Political Committee (hereinafter identified as GA (V), Ad Hoc Political Committee), Summary Records of Meetings, 30 September to 14 December 1950, page 504.
Later the same day, the spokesman of El Salvador stated that the United Nations could not allow the occupation of Jerusalem by two powers to be converted from a de facto to a de jure situation and that adoption of the Swedish proposal would be tantamount to rescinding previous General Assembly resolutions (ibid., page 506).
As early as December 11, the Jordanian spokesman advised the Committee that he was unable to accept the Swedish draft resolution (ibid., page 486). The Israeli spokesman, on the other hand, supported the draft resolution and indicated that Israel would not oppose various amendments that might make the proposal acceptable to Jordan. He also denounced the Belgian draft resolution as merely a device to postpone decision (ibid., page 509).
The Iraqi Representative denounced the joint amendment to the Swedish draft resolution as dangerous because it implied United Nations resignation to the idea that it had failed in its task and because it indicated that the United Nations would change its policy with changes in circumstances; and as unjust because it attempted to legalize the unjust situation in Jerusalem. He concluded that it would be better to abide by the principle of internationalization but to wait for the right moment to implement it (GA(V), Ad Hoc Political Committee, Summary Records of Meetings, 30 September to 14 December 1950, page 516).