PARIS (Nov. 4)
A proposal which indicates that the American delegation at the U.N. is prepared to support, at least in spirit, the British policy of sanctions against Israel was made before the Security Council today, two days after the U.S. elections, by Dr. Philip Jessup of the U.S. delegation.
Immediately after the Council’s sub-committee presented its report, which adopted the Anglo-Chinese resolution calling for sanctions against Israel if the Jews did not withdraw to the positions they held before the Negev fighting, Jessup offered the following amendment to the Anglo-British proposal:
“The Security Council appoints a committee of the Council, consisting of the five permanent members together with Belgium and Colombia, to give such advice as the acting mediator may require with regard to his responsibilities under this resolution, and in the event that either party or both should fail to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution within whatever time limit the acting mediator may think it desirable to fix, to study as a matter of urgency and to report to the Council on further measures appropriate to take under Chapter VII of the Charter.”
Jessup explained his proposal as giving the mediator greater opportunity for consulting with a more responsible body on the “very heavy responsibilities” placed upon him by the resolution. It would also allow the committee to consider action in the wider scope of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter rather than just restricting it to Article 41, which specifies diplomatic and economic sanctions.
UKRAINIAN DELEGATE OPPOSES U.S. AMENDMENT: CALLS FOR DIRECT ARAB-JEWISH TALKS
He maintained that the authority of the United Nations was at stake in this once and that all that he sought was a successful continuation of the truce in the disputed areas. “We are discussing the truce not a political settlement,” he stated. “Our action is a necessary prerequisite to Assembly consideration, but does not prejudice the result of such consideration in any way.” Nor must the political position of either of the parties nor of members of the Security Council be permitted to interfere, he said.
The Ukraine, dissenting member of the Palestine sub-committee which adopted the Anglo-Chinese resolution, declared that both the resolution and the American amendment were in clear contradiction of the Council resolution of Oct. 19 which ordered a cease-fire in the Negev and negotiations between Israel and Egypt on a number of issues, including returning to the pre-fighting positions. The Ukrainian delegate added that he was submitting his own resolution calling for negotiations between the parties.
The U.S.S.R. and Aubrey Eban, Israeli representative, supported the Ukrainian view. France, fifth member of the sub-committee, suggested deletion of all mention of sanctions and opposed that section of the resolution which established the Council committee merely as an advisory body to the acting mediator. China. supported the American proposal.
ISRAELI REPRESENTATIVE CRITICIZES U.S. MOVE TO PERMIT SANCTIONS
Eban quoted acting mediator Dr. Ralph Bunche about the “crucial nature” of the truce and reminded the Council members that Bunche had recommended negotiations. Ebon asserted that he could not understand why the sponsors of the resolution insisted on sweeping those ideas of Bunche’s aside, nor why the mediator had to be given dictatorial powers. A “paradoxical situation” has arisen, the Israeli spokesman said, that sanctions should be applied when actually peace reigns in the regions under discussion and that sanctions should be used to favor invading armies which are still stationed on Israeli soil.
Emphasizing that it is the duty of Israel to establish its sovereignty in the area allotted at by the U.N., Eban declared that it was “strange” that Britain which is a party to an anti-Israel resolution is also the power which wants to detach the Negev from Israel. He criticized the proposal to establish “neutral” zones in the Negev, pointing out that the late mediator Count Folke Bernadotte had found it impractical in Jerusalem. “Who will provide the manpower and money?” queried the Israeli representative, in conclusion.
The Egyptian delegate said that his government refuses to sit down to negotiate with the Jews and suggested discounting reports of victories from “Zionist sources.” The Syrian reiterated charges of “Jewish aggression.” The Canadian delegate, Minister for External Affaire Lester D. Pearson, who asked for a postponement of the session until tomorrow to study the American proposal and was refused, said he opposed Eban’s position and supported in principle the American amendment.
At the suggestion of Belgium, Bunche was given the floor. He repeated the early statements about the “desirability” of creating large no-man’s areas. He reported that he had asked his chief of staff to come to Paris to inform him of what was needed to implement such a scheme. He reasserted his belief in direct negotiations and stressed that greater responsibilities rest on his shoulders under the latest proposals.