Suchergebnisse

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from its 531st meeting on January 31, 1951 to its 540th meeting on April 2, 1951. Following in alphabetical order the presidents were the representatives of Ecuador (Quevedo), France (Lacoste), India (Rau) and Netherlands (Balluseck). Sir Benegal Rauceded the presidency to D. von Balluseck during March as the India-Pakistan question was under discussion in the Council during that month. New members welcomed at the meeting on January 31 were Carlos Muniz (Brazil), D. von Balluseck (Netherlands) and Selim Sarper (Turkey) replacing the delegates of Norway, Egypt and Cuba. During discussion of die India-Pakistan question, Sir Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) was invited to the Council table.

From its 865th through its 868th meetings, the Security Council considered the claim of Argentina that its sovereign rights had been violated by the illicit and clandestine transfer of Adolf Eichmann from Argentine territory to the territory of the state of Israel. After the representative of Israel had been invited to participate without vote in the deliberations of the Council, Mr. Amadeo (Argentina), opened the discussion by reviewing the history of cordial relations between the two countries, noting in addition Argentina's traditional attitude of opposition to racial and religious discrimination and persecution. Argentina had brought the case to the UN, he said, only after exhausting all the possibilities of direct bilateral negotiation. While Argentina did not defend the crimes of which Eichmann had been accused, nor did it seek immunity for him, it could not allow a crime to be judged as a direct result of the violation of Argentina's rights; thus this was not the case of Adolf Eichmann and his crimes against humanity, but rather the case of a country claiming justice after an act which, if it were to be repeated, might shake the very foundations of international order. It was in this light that the Argentine delegate presented a draft resolution to the Security Council whereby the Council would, inter alia, request the government of Israel to proceed to an appropriate reparation in conformity with the Charter of the UN and the rules of international law.

At the 973d meeting the situation in the Congo was once again brought to the attention of the President of the Security Council, in a letter from the permanent representatives of Ethiopia, Nigeria, and the Sudan delineating conditions in Katanga caused by the lawless acts of mercenaries. Following communications from these respective delegations, representatives of Ethiopia, Belgium, India, and the Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville) were invited, at their request, to participate in the debate.

From its 921st through its 923d meetings the Security Council considered the complaint of the government of Cuba that the United States was planning direct military intervention in Cuba.Mr. Wadsworth, the representative of the United States and the first speaker, deplored the fact that because of continued provocation over nearly a two-year period the United States had been forced to break diplomatic relations with Cuba, and denied as false propaganda the Cuban charges that the United States was contemplating a military attack on Cuba. Mr. Roa, the Cuban representative, stated in his opening remarks that Cuba considered the Security Council the proper organ before which to bring its case, and that his country opposed any effort to transfer the examination of its claim to the Council of the Organization of American States. He charged, inter alia: 1) that United States materials had been air-lifted to counter-revolutionary groups in the Cuban mountains; 2) that United States Embassy officials had been engaged in espionage and in conspiracy with counterrevolutionary elements; 3) that false and harmful propaganda against Cuba was being broadcast from the United States, with the support of the United States government; 4) that mercenaries were being trained at Guantanamo Naval Base, with a view to launching a number of small military expeditions against different points of the island; and 5) that destroyers had been placed on the alert in Key West, ninety miles from Cuba. The ultimate objective of these movements, Mr. Roa added, was a military invasion of his country.

At the initiative of the President of the Council, Arthur J. Goldberg (United States), the Security Council met on September 4, 1965, to consider the India-Pakistan question. Mr. Goldberg explained that, following consultations with the Secretary-General, he had decided to call a meeting of the Council because of the gravity of the military news from Kashmir and because it appeared that the UN observers there were being prevented from carrying out their functions freely. He also informed the Council that on September 1 the Secretary-General had sent to the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan an appeal for a cease-fire. Although objections of a procedural nature were raised by the representative of the Soviet Union, the Council decided to consider the question. At the invitation of the President representatives of India and Pakistan took seats at the Council table.

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from its 559th meeting on October 1 to its 567th meeting on December 6, 1951. The President during October was the representative of Brazil (Muniz), during November the representative of China (Tsiang), and during December the representative of Ecuador (Albornoz). During discussion of the Anglo-Iranian and India-Pakistan questions, representatives of Iran and Pakistan, and a special representative for India and Pakistan (Graham), were invited to participate without vote in the proceedings.

The Security Council at its 990th meeting discussed briefly the India-Pakistan question, which had once again been brought to its attention in letters from the representatives of India and Pakistan on the situation prevailing with regard to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The repre-sentative of Pakistan had charged in the initial complaint that since efforts for direct negotiation had failed, there was a grave danger to the maintenance of peace in the Kashmir region. Following a presentation of the question by Chaudhri Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan), the Indian delegate, Mr. Jha, asked the Council to postpone considera-tion of the issue until after the general elections in India so that the new govern-ment formed after the elections could fully participate in the discussion.

On July 31,1947, the Security Council began its discussion of the Indonesia question as the result of communications from two Members of the United Nations. India, under Article 35(1) of the Charter, contended that the "large scali military action against the Indonesian people" initiated by the Dutch endangered the maintenance of international peace under Article 34. Australia stated that the hostilities between the armed forces "of the Netherlands and of the Republic of Indonesia" constituted a breach of the peace under Article 39 and suggested that the Council should call upon the two governments to cease hostilities and commence arbitration in accordance with Article 17 of the Linggadjati Agreement signed by the two parties on March 25, 1947.

The Security Council discussed this question at its 1022nd–1025th meetings, on October 23–25, 1962. It had before it a letter dated October 22, 1962, from the permanent representative of the United States, in which it was stated that the establishment of missile bases in Cuba constituted a grave threat to the peace and security of the world; a letter of the same date from the permanent representative of Cuba, claiming that the United States naval blockade of Cuba constituted an act of war; and a letter also dated October 22 from the deputy permanent representative of the Soviet Union, emphasizing that Soviet assistance to Cuba was exclusively designed to improve Cuba's defensive capacity and that the United States government had committed a provocative act and an unprecedented violation of international law in its blockade.

The Security Council devoted its 913th–920th meetings to a consideration of the current situation in the Congo. The Council had before it a report by the Secretary-General regarding the arrest and subsequent treatment of Mr. Patrice Lumumba.and a statement from the government of the Soviet Union concerning the Congo situation, as well as requests to present their views from several delegations not members of the Council. All these requests were granted. Referring to the statement of the Soviet delegate raising the question of the role of the UN in the Congo, and to his own note dealing with the arrest and detention of Mr. Lumumba, the Secretary-General opened the discussion by presenting his views on a number of aspects of the situation. Reminding the Council that UN troops had been sent into the Congo to protect life and property, he assured the delegates: 1) that the UN personnel there had maintained a strict neutrality in relation to all domestic political problems; 2) that, since the UN Force had been requested to assume functions in regard to law and order, there was a legal basis for the Secretary-General to concern himself with the observance of generally accepted human rights; and 3) that it was on that basis that he and his special representatives had appealed to the Congolese authorities to apply due process of law. The problem of ascertaining the true functions of the UN in the Congo was derived from the fact that the situation in that country had changed since the original Security Council mandate authorizing the dispatch of a UN Force to the Congo; one of the original objectives, namely, the elimination of Belgian military forces, had been achieved, but the problem of the protection of life and property was still acute, and the army was not, in the Secretary-General's opinion, much more capable of maintaining law and order than when the UN had first entered the Congo. Thus, it was his conclusion that the original reasons for the UN military presence were still valid, and that the withdrawal of the UN Force would result in chaos rendering impossible technical assistance activities, civilian business, and normal political leadership.

With the signature on November 2, 1949, of a comprehensive Covering Resolution, the Round Table Conference on the Indonesian question reached an "eminently successful" conclusion, the United Nations Commission for Indonesia reported to the Security Council on November 8. Agreement had been reached by representatives of the Netherlands, the Republic of Indonesia, and the Federal Consultative Assembly on transfer of sovereignty over Indonesia, the statute of the Netherlands-Indonesian Union, and a series of related problems. The commission's report, to which Conference agreements were appended, noted that the commission had taken part in the conference in accordance with its terms of reference, and had played a substantial role in the successful outcome.

The Security Council at its 1012th to 1016th meetings, June 15–22, 1962, continued discussion of the situation prevailing in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. At the invitation of the President, the representatives of India and Pakistan took seats at the Council table. Mr. Adlai Stevenson (United States) expressed the opinion that it was die duty of the Council to search for a solution to this dispute which threatened the peace of the sub-continent. He referred to the common ground which existed between the two parties, namely the resolutions of the UN Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, and in particular to paragraph 1 of the January 5 resolution which stated that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite". He hoped that both parties would agree to a high-level conference to explore the prospects for negotiations and discussions which hopefully might lead to a final resolution of the dispute.

The Security Council held its 841st meeting on December 8, 1958, in response to an Israeli request that it convene to consider what was termed by this request an act of aggression committed on December 3, 1958, by the armed forces of the United Arab Republic against Israel territory in the Huleh area in northeast Galilee. The Council also had before it a report on the matter by the Chief of Staff of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Opening the discussion, Mr. Eban, the Israeli spokesman, stated that on December 3 a Syrian army post in the area had opened fire on Israeli shepherds and on a security patrol which came to their aid. This occurred on Israel territory in the area to which the demilitarization provisions of the 1949 Agreement were not applicable, according to Mr. Eban. Later, according to Mr. Eban, defensive fire was directed by Israeli forces against the Syrian posts. Syrian forces then opened a heavy artillery barrage on seven Israeli villages. These facts were confirmed, said Mr. Eban, in the reports of UNTSO. He informed the Council that Israel had asked UNTSO for an immediate cease-fire which was set by the latter for 1700 hours. The Israelis did not fire after 1700; on the Syrian side small arms fire again broke out after dark at 1940. Mr. Eban described a radio broadcast in Hebrew from Cairo on December 4 which indicated, in his view, that Cairo and Damascus did not repent of the bombardment or promise the cessation of such acts.

On July 29, 1948, the Security Council devoted two sessions to a further consideration of the Indonesian question. The occasion for the discussion was the receipt from the Committee of Good Offices of a previously requested report on restrictions of trade in Indonesia and the reason for the delay in the implementation of Article 6 of the Renville Truce Agreement. The committee reported that, six months after the Truce Agreement, Republican controlled areas of Java and Sumatra suffered from "grave deficiencies" of transportation equipment and supplies which acted to cause local dislocations and shortages of all categories of materials needed for rehabilitation reconstruction. Factors creating these shortages were listed by the committee as 1) the division of Indonesia into two separate administrative compartments; 2) the damage of World War II followed by political dispute, military conflict and scorched earth policies; 3) the inadequate implementation of Article 6 of the Truce Agreement arising, primarily, from the "regulations governing domestic and international trade promulgated by Netherlands Indies civil and military authorities between January 1947 and the signing of the Truce Agreement and which have been continued in effect to date."3 After summarizing Dutch and Indonesian positions on these regulations, the committee, after declining to allocate responsibility as between the two parties, concluded that it was "indisputable" that pending an agreement restoring economic and political unity to Indonesia the economic plight of Republican controlled areas could not be substantially ameliorated "until a way is found to relax existing regulations," and that this development would require a basic improvement in the attitude of the parties.

On December 12, 1948, the Committee of Good Offices submitted a special report on the direct talks between the representatives of the governments of the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia which, together with its appendices, made available previously confidential documentation that had been the subject of Security Council discussion. Of special interest were the so-called Crichtley-DuBois Memorandum of June 10, 1948, and the Cochran Memorandum of November 10, 1948. In the former, the Australian and United States' representatives had submitted to both parties a working paper for the resolution of differences containing the following suggestions: 1) that the extent of the Republic's representation in the Provisional Federal Government be determined on the basis that Republican territory would include all those portions of Java, Sumatra and Madura in which, through a plebiscite, the population expressed a desire to be incorporated into the Republic; 2) that it would be possible to create a fairly representative Provisional Federal Government through machinery which would consist of a Joint Commission of Technical Experts to delineate boundaries of states; a Constituent Assembly elected upon the basis of one delegate for each 500,000 inhabitants and given power to accept the report of the Technical Commission making changes in proposed state boundaries only by majorities of both the Assembly and the delegates from the areas affected by changes; and a Provisional Parliament. The memorandum proposed that the powers of the Lieutenant Governor-General be limited, in the provisional period, to a veto over acts of the Provisional Federal Government which were contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or to the Union Statute and to the direction, after consultation with the provisional authorities, of the employment of federal armed forces in cases of civil conflicts which the provisional authorities were unable to control.