USSR Joins Foes of Big Three Resolution in Security Council
Menu JTA Search

USSR Joins Foes of Big Three Resolution in Security Council

Download PDF for this date

The Soviet Union allied itself in the Security Council today with Nationalist China, Pakistan and The Lebanon in an effort to torpedo an amended draft resolution introduced by the United States, Britain and France, seeking settlement of the Israeli-Syrian dispute over the Israeli hydroelectric development at Bnot Yaakov in the demilitarized zone.

The Soviet delegate, after violently criticizing the three-power resolution as being “irrelevant to the issue” and for introducing bread new issues of economic development, formally called for indefinite postponement of a vote on the resolution to give time, he said, for negotiations between the two parties concerned, and for further study of the implications of the economic development indicated in the eleventh paragraph of the draft resolution.

Earlier, in an attempt to meet criticism previously voiced of the Big Three draft, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., head of the American delegation, announced amendment of the draft by addition of a fourteenth point which would state that nothing in the draft resolution “shall be deemed to supersede the armistice agreement or to change the status of the demilitarized zone therein. “

For adoption, the resolution would require a minimum of seven votes out of the 11 in the Council.


When debate was resumed by the Security Council today, Andrei Y. Vishinsky, speaking for the Soviet Union, quickly made his government’s position clear on the issue. He expressed strong sympathy with criticisms of the resolution previously voiced by Pakistan and Lebanon and condemned the 11th point in the resolution, declaring that its wording was so unsatisfactory that it could not be amended.

The Soviet spokesman accepted the Arab position and argued that the paragraph ignored completely the paramount point that any work in the demilitarized zone could be conducted only with the consent of both sides. He complained also of the use of the term “general welfare” in this paragraph which, he asserted, had nothing to do with the dispute. In the absence of agreement by both sides to work in the demilitarized zone, he declared, this resolution could only exacerbate relations.

He said his motion for postponing vote on the resolution was made on the instruction of the Soviet Government.

The Council also heard a long criticism of the resolution by Dr. Charles Malik of the Lebanon who even demanded that the section dealing with assignment of hydraulic engineers by the Secretary General to assist the Chief of Staff be by the agreement of both sides because “you cannot take precautions enough in the Palestine affair. “

In the lively exchange that followed, M. Henri Hoppenot of France asked M. Vishinsky how he conceived the parties could reach agreement among themselves, by what channels and by what means. The Soviet delegate said the answer was very simple. It was, he said, entirely up to the parties themselves and they could not be told to use this or the other channel.

M. Hoppenot remarked that the two months of debate on the issue had not left the impression that the parties concerned were inclined to enter direct negotiations and M, Vishinsky’s hopes could prove to be “rather idle.”

Dr. Malik said that Maj. Gen. Vagn Bennike, the truce supervisor, and the Mixed Armistice Commission “bridged the chasm. ” M. Hoppenot pointed out that Syria, which had protested against carrying out of work by Israel, was “perfectly satisfied ” by Gen. Bennike’s order to Israel to cease work and was not eager to enter into negotiations which could result in Israel being permitted to resume work on the project.

M. Vishinsky then took the floor again to summarize his objections to the joint resolution and to complain anew that its 11th paragraph involved issues of great economic importance which had nothing to do with the dispute which Syria had brought to the Security Council.

The Council will resume the debate tomorrow morning and is scheduled to hold a second afternoon session.

Founding Funders

The digitization of the JTA Archive would not have been possible without the generous support of the following donors:
  • The Gottesman Fund
  • Righteous Persons Foundation
  • Charles H. Revson Foundation
  • Elisa Spungen Bildner and Robert Bildner, in honor of Norma Spungen
  • George S. Blumenthal
  • Grace and Scott Offen Charitable Fund