CASE FOR UNITED NATIONS

Evening Star, Issue 26028, 17 February 1947, Page 7

CASE FOR UNITED NATIONS

TWO ALTERNATIVE COURSES OPEN TO BRITAIN

.NEW YORK. February 15. The British delegate to the .'security Council, Sir Alexander Cadogan, has received no instructions so far arising from Air Ernest Bevin’s announcement in London that the Palestine problem would be referred to the United Nations, says the Associated Press. There is a feeling among members of his delegation, however, that Britain may take the unprecedented step of seeking a special session of the General Assembly so that it could recommend measures for a peaceful settlement. There are two alternative courses:—

First, the case could be brought before the Assembly under the trusteeship system, in which case Britain would have to submit a trust agreement to the Assembly, and all countries who felt that they were directly concerned in Palestine would be involved.

secondly, me problem coum no handed direct to the Security Council, either under a charter provision classifying Palestine as a strategic area, or by contending that the issue was endangering world peace. Some delegates believe that Britain will seek a special session of tlie Assembly to avoid the possibility of veto in the Security Council. One Britisn source said: “ We want to wash our hands of the whole thing. We do not even want to be a trustee for Palestine.” thus indicating tnat Britain would be reluctant to put the case to the United Nations under the Trusteeship system. The New York ‘ Herald-Tribune,’ declaring that in so far as Europe s displaced persons are concerned, the matter was intrinsically a world problem and should be dealt with as *, n ’ Ine ■ British are giving the clearest possible evidence that they are more concerned witn producing a reasonable settlement than with promoting British interests .in the Eastern Mediterranean. Mr Bevin deserves credit for at least cutting the gordian. knot. It is now time for other members of the. United Nations, including,: of course, the United States, to prepare to measure up to the responsibili-: ties which are to be imposed upon, them.” . The ‘ New York Times ’ comments that “ one reaon for this step is hard necessity. Right or wrong, _ military occupation -of Palestine required men and money desperately needed at home. Right or wrong, imperialism is a luxury which Britain cannot afford. It would, however, be unfair to maintain that this is the only factor. The conscience of the British people cannot help being reflected in the Labour Government. They may be divided as the people in this country are as to what kind of State should be created in Palestine, but they know that peace, democracy, and tolerance do hot flourish under military law.” ■ The article refers to the sobering responsibility which the action has imposed on the United Nations, and adds that Britain, in giving up her hold on Palestine —ifor that is what the new policy must mean if it means anything—might, impress even sceptical Russians with her sincerity.