New Zealand’s Views On Palestine Partition Expressed in Assembly

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26626, 24 November 1947, Page 5

New Zealand’s Views On Palestine Partition Expressed in Assembly

Rec. 9 p.m. NEW YORK, Nov. 22. Sir Carl Berendsen to-day urged the Palestine committee not to try to rush a decision. He said that the New Zealand Government had instructed him not to vote for the partition plan unless it provided for implementation. “ These'proposals of the partition sub-committee ignore the problems of implementation to a deplorable extent. Is this committee prepared to gamble on peaceful implementation—to gamble with the lives of thousands? ”

Sir Carl said: “Mandatory power cannot, during the transition period, with any degree of justice, be charged with the sole responsibility for implementation. If the United Nations assumes, responsibility of deciding on partition, then it must assume the responsibility for its implementation. There must be means of enforcement which must be provided by every member of the United Nations, according to their means.”

Sir Carl continued: “ But the subcommittee fails to provide effective measures of enforcement without which there is no prospect of success I emphasise the extreme unwisdom of trying under pressure of time to settle a matter of such grave importance. Let' the Assembly remain in session or, alternatively, let the Palestine Committee be authorised in due time to constitute itself as a special assembly. But what we must not do is to try to decide these questions without adequate consideration of the grave principles at issue.” Mr Herschel Johnson (United States) appealed for the committee’s approval of partition by as large a majority as possible. Mr Johnson criticised the British delegates for what he called “ desultory assistance ” in the subcommittee stage. . Mr John Martin (Britain), in reply, said that the British had tried to be as helpful as they could. He pointed out that Britain was not invited to participate in the working group’s discussion of implementation. Britain felt there was a gap in the partition plan. He said the delegations should declare that they were prepared to take the great risk which would arise from the fact that there was no force to compel acceptance of the plan. “ If there is fighting in Palestine the lives lost will be British lives. If there is to be any widows, they will be in Britain—not in those countries represented here.” said Mr Martin. Mr Johnson withdrew his criticism of the British delegates. He said they had been as helpful as possible but Britain's declared policy had not been entirely helpful and made the task more difficult. “ The plan makes the Security Council responsible for the security elements. Certainly, if a situation arises under Chapters G and 7 of the Charter, my Government will perform its duty in carrying out the Security Council’s decisions.” (Chapter 7 calls for the possible use of armed force to implement decisions). The chairman, Dr 11. V. Evatt, told the committee that the question had been studied thoroughly but conciliation of the views of Arabs and Jews appeared to be impossible at present -Arab speakers declared that before any plans could be discussed the Assembly should be certain that it had the right to partition the countries. The committee adjourned until Monday

Reuter’s correspondent at Lake Success says that it is still impossible accurately to forecast the vote on partition. The appeal by Sir Carl Berendsen, who carries great authority with the delegations, was a serious warning to many not to try to rush through the Palestine decision for the sake of catching their sailing reservations on Wednesday.

The Arab members also created a strong impression with the plea that before any plans could be discussed the Assembly should be certain it had the right to partition Palestine. Several delegations, particularly European, are seeking new instructions from their Governments on that point