22

had been entrusted with a specific function by the Assembly's resolution of 29th November, stated that they did not regard the Council as the appropriate body to which the proposed kind of emergency action should be referred. These representatives (among whom were numbered Australia, Poland, the U.S.S.R., and Uruguay) therefore suggested that the normal and obvious procedure would be for the First Committee to establish a sub-committee. Such a procedure would not only be in conformity with the provisions of the Charter in respect to questions of preservation of peace and security, but it would be speedier. An Australian amendment (Document A/C/l/282) to the French resolution which would have referred the question of the adoption of measures for the protection of Jerusalem to a sub-committee was accordingly submitted. Since it appeared that the Committee might now become entangled in procedural wranglings, Sir Carl Berendsen intervened at this stage to appeal to the Committee to adopt a decision one way or the other without further delay. The New Zealand representative said that he had been shocked at the dilatory way in which the Assembly was dealing with the urgent question before it, and that unless something was done quickly the organization would lose in prestige. He considered that there was much to be said in favour of the Australian proposal, and there was no doubt that the Trusteeship Council was not the appropriate body to study problems relating to peace and security. Nevertheless, it was a fact that the Trusteeship Council had acquired a considerable knowledge of the problems familiar to Jerusalem and on the whole he preferred the French-Swedish proposal (Document A/C/l/281). The Australian amendment, on being put to the vote, was rejected by 26 votes (including New Zealand) against 20 in favour, with 7 abstentions. The French draft resolution, as amended by Sweden, was then adopted by 44 votes to 3, with 6 abstentions. The resolution, which was thereupon immediately approved by the General Assembly, meeting in the committee room, asked the Trusteeship Council to study, with the mandatory Power and the interested parties, suitable measures for the protection of the City of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, and to submit within the shortest possible time proposals to the General Assembly to that effect. Consideration by Trusteeship Council In accordance with the request contained in the above-mentioned resolution the Trusteeship Council met on 27th April (the day following the General Assembly's action). The French representative (M. Garreau) immediately elaborated upon the French proposal advanced by M. Parodi in the First Committee. The gist of the French plan was that quite independently of the general question of Palestine and without prejudice