From Mandate to Partition, Lessons Learned or Mistakes Repeated - The United Nations and Palestine
(This article is based on a shorter bulletin released on
the 22nd International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian
People, 29 November 2000)
More than five decades after the United Nationsfirst addressed the
issue of Palestinian rights, it is appropriate to revisit the
discussions, debates, and proposals of 1947 and 1948 that led up to
the adoption of UNGA Resolution 181(II) to see what kinds of
lessons can be drawn from the UN's first attempt to deal with the
so-called question of Palestine. This is particularly relevant at
the current time with renewed, albeit limited, involvement of the
United Nations after the collapse of the Madrid/Oslo process and
Israel's brutal policy to destroy legitimate Palestinian resistance
to the occupation and the denial of Palestinian rights.
Palestine and the United Nations
From the beginning of 1947 the Palestine question assumed a major
place in the agenda of the United Nations. After three decades of
occupation and mandatory rule, the British government had decided
it was time to cut its losses and withdraw from Palestine. In a
situation of mounting tensions and chaos, Great Britain turned to
the UN in February of the same year.
For several weeks, officials examined the various avenues of UN involvement in Palestine. Both the Security Council and the Trusteeship Council were rejected as appropriate venues, the first because of potential obstacles created by permanent member vetoes, and the second because transferring the authority of the League of Nations Mandate to the UN Trusteeship Council would have entailed an agreement between the UN and the Mandatory power, Great Britain, which was in a process of trying to extricate itself from Palestine, rather than to enter into new agreements and obligations.
With the situation on the ground continuing to deteriorate, British officials submitted a request to the UN Secretary General to place the question of Palestine on the agenda of the upcoming regular session of the General Assembly. The Assembly was further requested to make recommendations, under Article 10 of the UN Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine.
The conflict in Palestine was to be one of the first major
attempts by the United Nations to resolve a major conflict that was
considered to be a potential threat to international peace and
security and there was concern among member states that the UN "get
it right." In the words of several delegates, the eyes of the world
were focused on the Assembly.
Two major issues surfaced repeatedly during discussions at the UN in the latter half of 1947 and the first part of 1948. The first issue focused in general on the legal implications of UN involvement in Palestine. More specifically: (a) What was the appropriate legal outcome of the British decision to unilaterally terminate the Mandate in Palestine? (b) Did the UN have the legal authority under its Charter to issue recommendations on the future status of Palestine? and (c) Did the UN have the legal authority to enforce such recommendations? The second issue focused on the broader aspects of implementation of any future arrangements or agreement on Palestine. As explained below, the United Nations was unable to reach conclusions on these critical issues before the British withdrew from Palestine in May 1948.
| The Mandate System The Mandate system was established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in order to accommodate existing colonial interests and the need to recognize the rights of colonized peoples to self-determination. Under Article 22, the "tutelage" of colonized peoples was "entrusted to advanced nations" until such a time as such peoples were "able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." The degree of "tutelage" depended upon the political development of the territory concerned. "A" Mandates were regarded as the most developed, through to "C" Mandates as least developed. Palestine was considered to be an "A" Mandate. According to paragraph 4 of Article 22, "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principle consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." In other words, the future status of Palestine was deemed to be political independence. In the case of Palestine, unlike other self-governing territories placed under the Mandate system, the British administered Mandatory period did not lead to independence. This was due in large part to the decision, inconsultation with Zionist officials, to include the unilateral recommendation of the British cabinet (1917 Balfour Declaration) to establish a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine within the terms of the Mandate. A month prior to the approval of the Mandate by the British government, the British House of Lords had voted to repeal the Balfour Declaration based on concerns about its immediate and future potential to destabilize the region. A similar motion in the British Parliament, however, was defeated. Contrary to the obligations rendered under Article 22 of the League of Nations (i.e., provisional independence in the case of Palestine), the primary objective of British "tutelage", as set by the British government under Article 2 of the Palestine Mandate, was to "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home", rather than the independence of Palestine. The majority of the inhabitants of Palestine were only referred to secondarily as the "non-Jewish communities in Palestine" in reference to provisions for safeguarding their civil and religious rights, thereby excluding their right, as recognized by the League of Nations, to self-determination. |