It might be useful to review the situation of UNEF and try to foresee what might happen in the near future since this question is likely to be discussed during the 12th Session of the General Assembly.

2. Recently the future of UNEF has been the subject of much speculation in various quarters, particularly among the participating members of the Force and the major powers such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The persistent refusal of the Israelis to permit UNEF to operate on the Israeli side of the Demarcation line, even after the visit of the Secretary-General to Jerusalem, the financial difficulties, rendered even more serious by the presage of expenditures going far beyond the figures estimated for the current year of operations, and the defeatist and critical attitude of the press in certain milieux lead to believe to a possible folding up of the Force in the fall.

3. Although none of these problems about which I shall go into detail later on in this memorandum has been settled yet, it appears nevertheless to be the general consensus of opinion among the interested parties that UNEF should most probably continue in its present size and composition, for at least six months beyond November of this year. It is the generally accepted conclusion among impartial observers that UNEF is performing a very necessary function in the Middle East and that any substantial changes in its operations could only lead to a serious deterioration in that part of the world. In addition to the stabilizing influence resulting from the mere presence of UNEF troops, the Force symbolizes the United Nations' interest and concern about the problems of the area. An abrupt withdrawal of UNEF would affect considerably the prestige of the United Nations and would seriously handicap the Secretary-General's continuous and persistent efforts to bring about a reconciliation between the opposing parties. Conversely, as long as UNEF continues to function, specifically along the Demarcation line and at Sharm El-Sheikh, UNEF's influence in the area will remain strong and the opportunity for making progress towards a settlement will be enhanced.

ROTATION OF NATIONAL CONTINGENTS

4. Most of the governments participating in UNEF have expressed in a tangible way their faith in the usefulness of UNEF by demonstrating a willingness to continue their contribution as long as its need is apparent. The Scandinavian countries are about to complete the rotation of their contingents. With the exception of Finland which has decided to withdraw its contingent in November, the other Scandinavian countries foresee the continuation of their contribution for an unlimited period. They believe however that their contribution should be linked with some United Nations' efforts to stimulate progress on the political problems of Palestine. The Colombians, after some hesitation, have announced their decision to rotate their personnel and the rotation is to be completed by the end of August. The Yugoslavs and the Brazilians have also expressed their willingness to continue to serve with UNEF as long as this seems necessary. The Indians who, at various stages, showed some reluctance to commit themselves to any lengthy period of service with UNEF consider that the Force should continue in being for at least four months more i.e. until November 1957 when, according to them, UNEF might be modified in size and function and brought into closer relations with the United Nations Truce Organization in Palestine. Indonesia is the only country which has decided to withdraw its contingent after the first six months of operation in UNEF. The Indonesian decision was solely motivated by domestic problems caused by the state of unrest existing at the moment in their country. As far as Canada is concerned, rotation takes place on a yearly basis and the Canadian Army has virtually completed plans for the rotation to start on September 15 and to terminate by December 1st of this year in order that the troops be here for Christmas. Participating governments in UNEF and particularly India, Brazil and the Scandinavian countries consider that the Canadian contribution is the back bone of UNEF and that without our contingent, which performs the essential tasks of administration and support, the Force would fall apart. The U.K. and the USA officials have also expressed the view that the Canadian contribution could not be filled by other countries. On the whole, the decision taken by the various member countries of UNEF to replace personnel without limiting it to November of this year, is indicative that they do not consider as insurmountable the numerous problems affecting UNEF. This is particularly significant since the participating members are those most directly affected by the continuation of the Force. The willingness of these countries to pursue their task in the interest of peace in the Middle East may have a salutary effect on the indifferent and recalcitrant members of the United Nations.

ISRAELI AND EGYPTIAN ATTITUDES

5. Although the Secretary-General has met with a refusal on the part of the Israelis to let UNEF be deployed on the Israeli side of the Demarcation line, the issue is not dead. He is actually pursuing this question in an oblique fashion through a proposal for erection of a barbed wire fence along the line. The current approach is that a single apron fence might be erected, in some places at least, on both sides of the line with the ultimate aim to have the fence patrolled by UNEF. The Secretary-General is hopeful that Israel and Egypt will in due course accept this proposal and that Israel will allow UNEF to patrol on her side of the line. Pressure to have the Force deployed on Israel's side might develop at the 12th Session of the General Assembly. Arab countries and others will most probably insist that Resolution 461 of February 2, which mentions among other things the deployment of UNEF on both sides of the Demarcation line, be fully implemented. As time goes on the presence of UNEF is becoming better appreciated by both Israel and Egypt. There are strong indications that the two of them wish UNEF to continue its present function in the area even though for domestic political purposes there has been criticism on both sides. The presence of UNEF troops at Sharm El-Sheikh have ensured free passage for shipping to and from the port of Elath and through the Strait of Tiran. The Israelis cannot but be fully concerned by the recent Saudi Arabian complaints of violation of territorial waters by Israeli ships in the gulf of Aqaba and their claim that the presence of Israel at Elath is illegal. Furthermore the presence of UNEF at the Demarcation line, even though numerous border incidents have occurred, has prevented any real military infiltration. It can therefore be expected that when Arab pressure for implementation of Resolution 461 is increased, the Israelis will show themselves more amenable and might accept the barbed wire fence proposal with UNEF patrolling on both sides.

6. While UNEF has met with some reticence on the part of junior Egyptian officials, it is the opinion that at highest levels, Egypt has cooperated well with the United Nations and General Burns. Egyptian policy pronouncements, particularly those concerning the Gaza Strip, have helped to maintain calm in the area. Relations between the UNEF and the local Arabs have developed satisfactorily and it can be assumed that Egypt will continue to cooperate in its own interest and that of other Arab countries. It has been part of the Egyptian policy to play the good fellow with the United Nations. No one can deny that such an attitude has been fruitful for Egypt. India, which exerts a strong influence on Egypt, contributes considerably to encourage her in that way.

FINANCING

7. The financing of UNEF is probably its most acute problem. The total cost for the current year of operation, i.e. until December 31, 1957 was originally estimated at $16.5 million. It is now evident that this sum will be greatly exceeded. It is estimated that the operating cost of UNEF up to December 31 will be $22 millions with, an additional $5 millions for capital expenditures and expenditures for rotating national contingents, a total of $27 millions. At its last session, the General Assembly authorized the Secretary-General to draw the sum of $10 millions from the United Nations Working Fund and to assess the members for that amount in accordance with the scale of assessment for 1957. Later on, the Secretary-General was authorized to request voluntary contributions for the balance needed which was then estimated at $6.5 millions. The Soviet Bloc has rejected the request for contribution to the initial sum of $10 millions and China and Uruguay, usually in arrears for their payments to the United Nations, have not yet paid their contribution. Furthermore little response has been given to the Secretary-General's request for voluntary contributions to meet the cost in excess of the initial $10 millions. Up to now only the United Kingdom has actually come forward with a contribution to the "supplementary fund." The U.K. contribution, a little less than $500,000, is not in cash but is to be deducted from a total of $800,000 which represents U.K. supplies to UNEF. As far as Canada is concerned we have answered the Secretary-General's request for voluntary contribution by stating that in view of the uncertainty surrounding the whole question of the financing of UNEF and particularly pending the solution of the problem of allocation of costs between the participating members and the United Nations, the Government of Canada was in no position to undertake future commitments. We explained that Canadian expenditures on behalf of UNEF were considerable and that until Canadian authorities could assess what Canadian membership in the Force would cost, our Government could not assume a larger share of financial responsibility. We nevertheless told the Secretary-General that we would review our position when the question of the financing of UNEF is debated at the next session of the General Assembly.

8. The United States, at the time the Secretary-General was authorized to make a request for voluntary contributions, expressed their willingness to pay half of the $6.5 millions required if the other half could be matched by other members. Since, to our knowledge, only the U.K. has come forward with a voluntary contribution, the U.S. offer has not been put into effect and, at its next session, the General Assembly will be faced with the necessity of voting funds to cover the difference between $10 millions and the $27 millions now estimated to be necessary. This may have a crucial effect on the future of UNEF. In view of past experience, it is difficult to see how the amount required can be raised on the basis of the scale of assessment especially if the Soviet Bloc continues to refuse to pay its share. It will rest mainly with the USA to decide whether the usefulness of UNEF justifies the financial sacrifices needed.

9. The high cost of UNEF will certainly force a revision of the present set up. The U.K., which favor the continuation of UNEF, are giving thought to some modification of the Force which they also consider too expensive to maintain indefinitely on its present size and composition. In their opinion UNEF should become less of a military force and more of an observer corps but with a status in the area which would be independent of the will of the opposing parties, and with more or less full powers for investigating and patrolling the area. On the other hand, the USA officials at United Nations, including Mr. Lodge, firmly believe that UNEF should continue in its present size and composition for at least six months beyond November 1957. The USA officials have given the impression to the United Nations officials and to our Permanent Representative that their government might consider providing a larger part of the financing. They added, however, that this would be conditional, as Congress insists, to some sort of matching principle. It is not yet clear what they exactly understand by matching principle. If it is a sharing of expenses on the basis of the scale of assessment with, perhaps, a larger contribution on the part of USA, it is doubtful that the extra funds will be authorized unless the U.S. contribution amounts to at least half of the sum required.

10. The financing of UNEF is therefore the determinating factor in assessing the future of UNEF. Until the USA come forward with more definite proposals it is difficult to foresee what it is likely to happen. The USA may already have decided to pay a good price for UNEF but they may be reluctant to divulge what they have in mind until they have been able to assess what other countries might be prepared to contribute.

11. In the next two months, the question may be clarified and we will be in a better position to make recommendations on the course of action Canada should follow.

J. L[ÉGER]

⁴²Note marginale:/Marginal note:
Not sent to Minister [M. GAUVIN]