The United States, Britain and France aligned themselves today behind a compromise proposal submitted by Brazil and Colombia designed to end a procedural log jam and permit the Security Council to consider Jordan and Israeli complaints of armistice violations. The compromise proposal itself, however, ran into heavy weather and amendments were proposed by both the Lebanon and China. As a result, the Security Council completed its second session without succeeding in adopting an agenda and adjourned until Thursday afternoon.
Andrei Y. Vishinsky, president of the Council, in opening the session, proposed that the Council first adopt the provisional agenda and then discuss the method of dealing with the agenda items. He was challenged immediately by the French delegate who insisted that the agenda and the order in which the items were to be taken up were "inseparable."
After further discussion, the Brazilian delegate, with the support of the Colombian representative, introduced a proposal which provided: 1. Adoption of the agenda as it stands; 2. General debate in which delegates would be free to refer to any and all items on the agenda, and 3, Reserve for a later stage the decision on a joint or separate character of any resolutions it wished to pass.
The proposal came under fire immediately from the Soviet representative who supported the Arab viewpoint. Mr. Vishinsky, who was subsequently pointedly reminded of his past advocacy of joint consideration of Israel and Egyptian complaints, assailed joint consideration of the Jordan and Israel complaints as "unnecessary and not even appropriate. " He warned it would only complicate matters and cause confusion.
He asserted that the "center of gravity" of the Israeli complaint lay in complaints about the general policy of Jordan. The Jordan complaint, however, dealt with murder and pillage which naturally called for condemnation. The Jordanian complaint, he added, in no way dealt with general policy. He said he favored adoption of the agenda and separate discussion of the items which would permit, "to a reasonable extent, " reference to general issues.
Sir Pierson Dixon announced acceptance of the Brazilian proposal by the British delegation. He said that while opposing piecemeal discussion of the Palestine question, the British delegation felt that the Nahalin incident was a serious one and the Security Council would have to consider it. The French delegate, too, in supporting the Brazilian proposal, said it was not the intention to "drown" the Nahalin incident in the general debate. He assured the Arabs that France attached the same importance to the Nahalin incident as it had to the Kibya incident.
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., speaking for the United States, announced support of the Brazilian proposal and pointed out that American thinking on the Palestine question had "evolved, " He said that "our position has changed because the situation has changed. It is as simple as that. "
Arab threats voiced in Amman and Cairo of a general Arab walkout if the Security Council voted for a general discussion of the Israel-Jordan situation, had their echo in the Council chamber when Dr. Charles Malik taxed the Western powers with refusing to consider Lebanon as an equal member of the Council to be "consulted" but coming to the meetings with pre-conceived plans and ultimatums.
He told the Council that "Jordan is in real mortal peril. It must do everything to defend itself. It is conferring with its friends everywhere about this. " He assailed proposals for general discussion as an attempt to drown the Nahalin incident in a sea of words.
Dr. Malik told the Council, however, that he was prepared to accept the Brazilian proposal if amended in one of two ways; the Council could hold a general debate on the situation if it promised, on conclusion of the debate, to proceed to a resolution on Nahalin or, it should dispose of the Nahalin incident first and then proceed to the general debate.
The Chinese delegate also proposed amendment of the Brazilian proposal aimed at restricting the general debate and approaching more closely the procedure sought by the Arabs.
LEBANON’S CLAIM TO PRECEDENCE "SPURIOUS," ISRAEL CHARGES
An Israel delegation spokesman charged tonight that the precedence claimed by Lebanon for the Nahalin item on the Security Council agenda was "entirely artificial and spurious. " He pointed out that Israel had announced its intention to raise three issues before the Security Council and had been discussing them with the French, British and American governments when Lebanon "stole a march" by filing its protest on the Nahalin incident.
The three events which Israel had raised, he said, were the Scorpion Pass massacre, the refusal of Jordan to honor its obligations under Article XII of the Israel-Jordan armistice agreement and the series of attacks launched against Israeli villages at and near Kissalon. While Israel abstained temporarily from raising these issues in the Security Council pending a decision by the three powers on whether or not to raise the issue, Lebanon projected the Nahalin complaint "in an effort to smother, obscure and efface the Jordanian aggressions and violations, and to frustrate any measure for an overall improvement of the frontier situation, " he added.
The spokesman also noted that the Israel delegation is at "a great disadvantage" when matters of political substance affecting Israel’s interests are discussed in the Security Council without Israel’s case being heard and before an Israel representative is invited to the Council table.
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.
