Britain Attempts to Forestall Effective U.N. Action to Halt Arab-jewish War

Britain today threw her support behind Arab efforts to forestall effective Security Council action to halt the Arab-Jewish war when ### Alexander Cadogan, head of the British delegation at the United Nations, warned the council that his government cannot agree to the invocation of Article 39 of the U.N. ##arter, which could lead to economic and military sanctions against the Arab states.Cadogan did not say whether Britain would abstain in the final vote, but as a member of the Big Five, a British “no” vote would have to be considered as a veto. He assisted that the Council should confine itself at this stage to working for truce in Jerusalem. He also called for the prompt appointment of a U.N. mediator by the Big ?ive committee of the General Assembly. Cadogan said that Israel had been set up as a ?milateral act” and charged that the Jews were no less responsible for the present lighting than the Arab League states.

“If our attention is focused on certain moves by Arab states, what do we think of the Jewish attack on Jaffa, to mention only one incident,” Cadogan said. He supported the idea of a “cease-fire” but opposed issuing a stand-fast order. The British delegate introduced a series of amendments to the proposed U.S. resolution and suggested the substituting by the U.S. of a new preamble which calls for the clarification of the present juridical status of Palestine.

U.S. DELEGATE OPPOSES BRITAIN’S MOVE; INSISTS ON DECISION INVOKING SANCTIONS

U.S. delegate Warren R. Austin rejected Cadogan’s proposed amendments which, he said, in spite of their surface resemblance to the language of his own resolution, are “essentially different.” The Security Council, Austin said, has a duty in Palestine which it cannot evade or avoid. He pointed out that the British amendments would rule out any effective U.N. action against a threat to the peace or breach of the peace.

Referring to Cadogan’s concern about which of the parties was primarily responsible for the present warfare, Austin declared that it is not necessary to decide who is more the aggressor and who is less. “It is the fact that aggression is going on which has to be faced,” Austin said.

As the session progressed it became apparent that Austin was fighting a losing struggle. Belgium, which had been counted upon to support the U.S. draft, came out firmly in favor of the British amendments. Austin conceded that the declarations by Egypt and, Trans Jordan ware “very serious events.” But the Belgian delegate declared that “the mere fact that the army of one country has crossed the frontiers of another country does not necessarily constitute a threat to the peace or a breach of the peace.

Major Aubrey Eban of the Jewish Agency, recalling the “soothing assurances” of the Egyptian delegate that his country was moving into Palestine, but not to attack “anyone or anything,” pointed to the bombing of Tel Aviv yesterday in which, he said, Egyptian attacks had caused 100 casualties. He urged the Council to act promptly against the aggression since it had sufficient official Information including “frank confessions of aggression,” from the leaders of the Arab states themselves.

Dr. T.F. Tsiang of China also opposed the United States resolution, preferring the British formula. Any action by the Security Council to declare the Arab invasions a breach of world peace would lead, he warned, to the eventual use of armed force against them. “This would amount to armed force In favor of partition rather than ### force to maintain simple peace,” he declared, “and that is my major objection to the United States resolution.” The session will resume tomorrow morning.