LAKE SUCCESS (Jun. 7)
The question of whether Syrian delegate Farise1 khouri should maintain presidency over the U.N Security Council this month the fact that he is an interested party in the Palestine problem which the Council is trying to solve aroused much discussion today in United Nations circles.
The question was raised publicly by a spokesman for the Israeli Government and by Herbert Bayard Swope. Mr. Swope, taking issue with el Khouri’s position, said that “as a matter of elemental fairness” the Syrian representative should disqualify himself until such time as his country is not a highly interested party in the Palestine issue.
“He is one of the most intransigent representatives of the so-called Arab League,” Mr. Swope said in a statement in the New York-Times, “He is consistently anti-French (if there is any doubt in your mind, ask M. Parodi, the distinguished representative of the French Republic); he is momentarily friendly to Mr. Bevin, if not to the British Cabinet, although not markedly pro-British in general; he is scathingly anti-American, and he has been savagely anti-Jewish. His nation is a party in high interest in the existing critical situation in Palestine.
“For these reasons the dictates of good taste and reasonable judgment should have prompted him to postpone his chairmanship–not to give it up but merely to postpone it. Failing his own initiative, some member of the Council should have suggested it. Why America failed to do so is a mystery. On other occasions of less weight we have taken this course,” Mr. Swope pointed out.
The Israeli representative argued that when an interested party exercises presidential functions, it is an obvious breach of juridical principle. However, the Syrian delegate expressed his determination to preside in the Council chair this month, asserting that he sees no valid reason to relinquish his post.