Argentina today requested an “urgent” meeting of the Security Council to consider its complaint that Israel, through “illicit and clandestine” means, violated Argentine sovereignty by taking Nazi murderer Adolf Eichmann from Argentine territory to Israel, and refusing to surrender him.
The request was made by Dr. Mario Amadeo, Argentina’s permanent representative here, in a note, backed by an explanatory memorandum, handed personally this morning to Dr. Tingfu F. Tsiang, of China. The latter is this month’s president of the Council.
Immediately after handing the documents to Dr. Tsiang, Dr. Amadco conferred with Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold. During the rest of the day, he conferred with other representatives to the 11-member Security Council. These, in addition to the five permanent members-the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France and China–are: Ecuador, Italy, Poland, Tunisia and Ceylon. Argentina itself is, this year, also a member of the Council.
While the request for a Council meeting was called “urgent” by Argentina, it was indicated that the Council would meet next Wednesday to start discussion of the Argentine complaint. It was expected that Mrs. Golda Meir, Israel’s Foreign Minister, who is in this country now, would attend the Security Council meeting.
The formal note from Dr. Amadeo was strictly legalistic in its wording, but the explanatory memorandum by the Government of Argentina seemed to go to extreme pains to justify today’s action on the grounds that Israel violated Argentine sovereignty by the removal of Eichmann from Argentine soil. The memorandum claimed that such a violation sets up a precedent of a country “taking justice in one’s own hands” and, thus, constitutes “a grave danger to the preservation of peace.”
SAYS IT DOES NOT EXPECT ISRAEL TO RETURN EICHMANN NOW
Argentina also declared in its memorandum that it does not expect Israel now to return Eichmann to Argentina. It stressed that the government and the people of Argentina “fully understand” Israel’s “reasons and considerations” for capturing Eichmann, and pointed out that it has tried normal diplomacy in an effort “not to Jeopardize the close friendships between Argentina and Israel.”
A few hours after Argentina took its step calling for a Council meeting, Michael Comay, Israel’s permanent representative here, conferred with Mr. Hammarskjold. It was said to have been “a preliminary” talk for the purposes of “clarification.” Mr. Comay was scheduled also to meet with other members of the Council this week.
In its memorandum, Argentina started by explaining that it was “forced” to ask for UN intervention by the breakdown of “diplomatic actions.” The memorandum was referring not only to the note sent by Argentina to Israel a week ago, demanding the return of Eichmann within a week, but also to the two-hour conference held yesterday between Dr. Amadeo and Mrs. Meir on the initiative of Uruguay’s delegation chairman. Dr. Enrique R. Fabregat. At that conference, Dr. Amadeo repeated his government’s request for Eichmann’s return, while Mrs. Meir, on behalf of Israel, stood fast in her government’s refusal to send the Nazi killer back to Argentina.
STRESSES THAT ISRAEL FAILED TO REPLY TO THE ARGENTINE ULTIMATUM
After calling attention to the fact that Argentina had sent a note on the issue to Israel last week, the memorandum continued: “The time limit fixed by the note has expired and the Argentine Government still has not received a reply to its note. In view of the well-known statements of Israel Government representatives, Argentina has come to the conclusion that Eichmann is not going to be returned.”
Repeating the charge that Eichmann’s “transfer” to Israel was “illicit and clandestine,” Argentina then claimed this is “a flagrant violation of the sovereign right of the Argentine State and its Government.” This fact “alone, ” continued the memorandum, “Justified Argentina’s demand for redress.”
“No consideration of any kind,” stated the memorandum, “including those invoked by the Government of Israel, could supersede the sovereign right of Argentina. The Argentine Government and people fully understand the value of Israel’s reasons and considerations. However, to allow them to prevail would be tantamount to permitting the taking of justice in one’s own hands, would disturb the equilibrium of international order, and would result in grave danger to the preservation of peace.
“Before approaching the Security Council, Argentina attempted to find satisfactory solution through normal diplomatic channels. It was guided in these steps by a desire not to jeopardize the close friendship between Israel and Argentina. These efforts have had no result and, thus, there was no other alternative than approaching the Security Council.” the memorandum stated.
Argentina said it is bringing the case to the Council under Article 34 and Article 35-Paragraph One of the UN Charter. Article 34 states: “The Security Council may investigate any dispute, on any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuation of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.”
The first paragraph of the next article states: “Any member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly. ” Thus, it was seen here. Argentina did not foreclose possible Assembly action if its requested “redress” is not obtained through Council action.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
