Position Paper / White Paper

New Zealand UNTC (1948) - Topic 3

single post cover

New Zealand

UNTC 1948

Topic 3 WHITE Paper: The US’s Proposal for Temporary UN Trusteeship of Palestine

His Majesty’s Government (HMG) in New Zealand seeks to establish, with the highest possible regard for established principles of equity and good order, an atmosphere of peace in the lands of the British Mandate for Palestine. This proceeds from the desire of HMG in New Zealand to ensure each inhabitant of those lands the full inheritance of his rights and liberties, ancient as well as modern. To do this, HMG in New Zealand looks with equal amity on those plans that continue the process of partition and those that institute a new trustee over those ancient domains, so long as each provides for the equal guarantee of security and prosperity in the region.

The necessary first step for any plan is therefore the guarantee of a peace under which further processes can be worked out. Decisions made in wartime often prove their rashness in peace, although this is not without exception, and matters of state or governance seldom flourish in such intemperate soil. Therefore, HMG in New Zealand earnestly does seek, as is practical, the extension of an armistice to cover all warring parties without exception. The terms of such an agreement would necessarily be devolved unto such parties, subject to international mediation only as is proper, necessary, and desired. It is the success of this armistice upon which all else depends.

In the interest of this necessary peace, the Trusteeship Council should look to what measures it may recommend to the General Assembly so as to create the facilitative conditions for an effective and lasting armistice. Although the participation of the international community in this matter must be circumspect, there do exist obligations on it to try to non-coercively prevent unnecessary and avoidable human death. The aim of any such measures should not be punitive towards any faction, nor the factions collectively, but should instead seek solely to create stable conditions for negotiation not marred by bloodshed.

The cessation of conflict would not only be its own reward, but it would allow for political forces in the region to begin to prevail over military forces. Although the international community does have the liberty and, perhaps, obligation to provide advice and counsel in this matter, its consent is only necessary in so far as it is appealed for in most normal circumstances. Sole executive power is not devolved, but in a conflict that promises and has already redeemed so much enmity it would perhaps be sagacious to leave as much as is practical, possible, and fit to the parties themselves.

All that being said, the possibilities of a new trusteeship does not escape HMG in New Zealand. Certainly there is advantage in the promise of an armistice rather than merely the spectre of one. Additionally, the increased opportunity for international involvement under such a plan, while perhaps providing greater opportunity for the bureaucratic working to death of any political solution, also could countenance such a solution that would draw solicit wider support and assistance than the current one. However, such a trusteeship, it could plausibly be said, would also remove some of the crucial impetuses that are now forcing some parties to the table. On balance, HMG in New Zealand is as yet uncommitted to any course of action.

The thing to which HMG in New Zealand is committed is an amiable, just, and expeditious political solution to the ongoing conflict in the Mandatory lands. Such a political solution can be arrived at by many means, some of which, as implemented currently seem to be failing, and others which have not yet had their day. The urgency with which such a solution must be found impels this Council to act in a commensurate manner.