Suchergebnisse

At the request of the United States the Council began consideration on March 26, 1956 of the extent of compliance by Israel and the Arab states with the Armistice Agreements and with the Security Council's resolutions of March 30, 1955, September 8, 1955 and January 19, 1956. The representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria took part in the Council's discussions. The Council had before it a draft resolution submitted by the United States in the preambular part of which the Council recalled the three earlier resolutions; noted that in each of these resolutions the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization and the parties to the General Armistice Agreements concerned had been requested by the Council to undertake certain specific steps for the purpose of ensuring that the tensions along the armistice lines should be reduced; and noted with grave concern that despite the efforts of the Chief of Staff the proposed steps had not been carried out. Under the terms of the operative part of the resolution, the Council 1) considered that the situation currently prevailing between the parties concerning the enforcement of the Armistice Agreements and the compliance given to the above-mentioned resolutions of the Council was such that its continuance was likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security; 2) requested the Secretary-General to undertake, as a matter of urgent concern, a survey of the various aspects of enforcement of and compliance with the four General Armistice Agreements and the three earlier resolutions;

On September 12, 1956, the representatives of France and the United Kingdom drew the attention of the President of the Council to the situation in the Suez. On September 23, they requested the President to call a meeting on September 26 to consider the situation created by the unilateral action of the Egyptian government in nationalizing the Suez Canal. The Egyptian government also requested that the Council meet to consider action against Egypt, particularly by the United Kingdom and France, which in its view constituted a danger to international peace and security.

At the request of the General Assembly at its tenth session, the Council considered the question of admission of new members to the UN from its 701st meeting on December 10, 1955, through its 706th meeting on December 15, and at its 708th meeting on December 21.

At its 791st meeting the Council began consideration of the India-Pakistan question in the light of a report by Ambassador Jarring on the visit he had made to the sub-continent at the request of the Council on February 21, 1957. The representative from Pakistan, Mr. Khan Noon, who opened the discussion, observed that Mr. Jarring stated that he could not report any concrete proposals likely to contribute towards a settlement of the dispute. Mr. Noon declared that every effort made by the four mediators appointed by the Council from time to time to create appropriate conditions in the state of Jammu and Kashmir for the holding of a fair and free plebiscite under the auspices of the UN had failed because India was not prepared to carry out its international obligations. Every suggestion made by Mr. Jarring for a peaceful solution of the problem was accepted by Pakistan, he said, so that if, as recorded in the report, his suggestions were not mutually acceptable, they were unacceptable only to India. Mr. Noon maintained that every problem having any bearing on the holding of a plebiscite was taken care of in the international agreement contained in the two United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions of 1948 and 1949 and listed as violations of the resolutions a number of acts by India, such as the inclusion of Kashmir as a state of India in the Indian Constitution, and the financial integration of Kashmir into India in 1955. He enumerated several Pakistanian concessions, including the withdrawal of tribesmen and Pakistanian nationals from Kashmir in advance of the truce agreement, although this obligation arose only after the signing of the truce agreement, and the agreement to the large-scale disbandment of Azad forces before the Plebiscite Administrator assumed office, although under the UNCIP resolution this move was envisaged only after the appointment of the Plebiscite Administrator.

Complaint by Kuwait arising from the Threat by Iraq to the Territorial Independence of Kuwait, and Complaint by the Government of the Republic of Iraq in respect to the Armed Threat by the United Kingdom to the Independence and Security of Iraq

At the request of the United States, the Council met on April 26 to resume consideration of the Suez question. The Council had before it an Egyptian declaration on the Suez Canal and the arrangements for its operation, dated April 24, in which the government of Egypt announced that the Canal was again open for normal traffic. The declaration on arrangements for its operation comprised the following ten points: 1) The terms and the spirit of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 were reaffirmed, the Egyptian government declaring its intention to respect, observe and implement them; 2) While reaffirming its determination to respect the terms and spirit of the 1888 Convention and to abide by the Charter and the principles and purposes of the UN, the government of Egypt was confident that the other signatories of the said Convention and all others concerned would be guided by the same resolve; 3) The government of Egypt was more particularly determined a) to afford and maintain free and uninterrupted navigation for all nations within the limits of and in accordance with the provisions of the 1888 Convention; b) that tolls should continue to be levied in accordance with the last agreement, concluded on April 28, 1956, between Egypt and the Suez Canal Maritime Company, and that any increase in the current rate of tolls within any twelve months, if it took place, should be limited to 1 percent, any increase beyond that level to be the result of negotiations, and, failing agreement, to be settled by arbitration according to the procedure set forth in paragraph 7(b) of the declaration; and c) that the Canal would be maintained and developed in accordance with the progressive requirements of modern navigation and that such maintenance and development should include the eighth and ninth programs of the Suez Canal Maritime Company, with such improvements to them as were considered necessary

Discussion of the complaint by Israel against Egypt concerning Egyptian restrictions on the passage of ships trading with Israel through the Suez Canal and Egyptian interference with shipping proceeding to the Israel port of Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba, which was begun on February 5, 1954, continued during the period under review. A second item on the agenda of the Council was the complaint by Egypt against Israel of violation of the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement at the demilitarized zone of El-Auja. Continuing the explanation of Egypt's position, Mahmoud Azmi (Egypt) on March 12 presented at length historical, psychological, legal and political considerations to support his argument that the Council should recover its resolution of September 1, 1951, in which it called on Egypt to terminate restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods through the Suez Canal and find some other means of dealing with the situation. After alleging that 114 persons had been killed in territory under Egyptian control and 60 persons injured since 1951 as a result of Israel violations of the Armistice Agreement, Mr. Azmi held that the procedure followed by Egyptian authorities did not constitute a military blockade but was one regarded in international law as appropriate for exercise of the right of visit and search; cited several judicial opinions in support of his argument that an armistice did not end a state of war and that a state of war did not end until a peace treaty had been ratified; quoted Article 51 of the Charter to prove that United Nations Members had the inherent right of self-defense; argued that the Suez Canal Convention signed at Constantinople in 1888 provided Egypt with the right to take all useful measures in the canal to ensure the defense of the country and public order; and declared that, concerning the Israel complaint of measures taken by Egypt at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, international law affirmed that gulfs, including international gulfs, were subject to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the coastal states and were accorded the same treatment as national and territorial waters.

Application of the Republic of Korea: The report of the Committee on the Admission of New Members concerning the application of the Republic of Korea for admission to the United Nations was considered at the 423rd meeting of the Council on April 8, 1949. Attacked by the Soviet and Ukrainian representatives as a puppet regime illegally established by the intervention of an illegally constituted Interim Committee of the Assembly, the Republic of Korea was strongly defended by the representatives of the United States, China and Argentina as an independent state willing and able to assume the obligations of membership. The vote on the Chinese resolution to recommend the admission of Korea recorded nine members in the affirmative, with the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR in the negative. The resolution therefore failed to pass because of the negative vote of the Soviet Union.

At its 700th meeting on September 8, 1955, the Council considered a report of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine, General E. L. M. Burns, on an outbreak of violence in the Gaza area which had begun with an incident on August 22 in which an Egyptian post near the demarcation line was occupied by Israel forces; according to General Burns, this incident, in which one Egyptian officer and two soldiers had been killed and three others wounded, had started a chain of violence. While it was not possible to affix responsibility for the episode of August 22, he stated, it had been followed by an organized series of attacks on vehicles, installations and persons, carried out by gangs of marauders in Israel territory and resulting in the deaths of eleven military and civilian personnel and the injury of nine. The number and nature of these attacks, in the view of General Burns, suggested that they were the work of organized and well trained groups, and he stated that investigations by the United Nations military observers tended to support this view. There had also been numerous incidents of firing across the demarcation line, accompanied in some instances by incursions of small parties of troops of either side, and sometimes resulting in heavy casualties. In view of the deterioration in the situation, General Burns reported, he had requested on August 26 that responsible Israel authorities in the area be instructed to act with restraint, and had informed the Egyptians that in his view it would be advisable to post United Nations military observers on the Egyptian side in accordance with arrangements previously in force, but subsequently discontinued.

The National Security Council has several functions in the foreign policy formulation process. NSC is responsible for coordinating interagency policy efforts to assure coherent policy proposals and implementation; for generating policy proposals of its own; and for coordinating policy research projects. NSC also makes sure that proposals mesh with existing U.S. policy. In discharging its responsibilities the NSC staff works closely with officials of the Department of State and other government agencies. Two NSC staff members are concerned with Africa. One covers all countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the other is responsible for the Horn of Africa. These two staff members work closely together on policy questions concerning Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sudan.

The National Security Council has several functions in the foreign policy formulation process. NSC is responsible for coordinating interagency policy efforts to assure coherent policy proposals and implementation; for generating policy proposals of its own; and for coordinating policy research projects. NSC also makes sure that proposals mesh with existing U.S. policy. In discharging its responsibilities the NSC staff works closely with officials of the Department of State and other government agencies. Two NSC staff members are concerned with Africa. One covers all countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the other is responsible for the Horn of Africa. These two staff members work closely together on policy questions concerning Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sudan.