Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V

350/1–3150: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Delegation to the Trusteeship Council, at Geneva¹

secret
priority

Washington, February 3, 1950—6 p. m.

179. Deltc 20. Fol for guidance Del in further TC discussions Jerusalem question (Tcdel 46,² 47,³ 49):⁴

1. Memo of Dec. 20, 1949,⁵ approved by President, remains basic instr for Del on Jerusalem.

2. Re Garreau Plan, Dept agrees with view indicated first para Tcdel 49 that plan is compatible with GA res Dec 9 only on broadest construction of res. However, Dept wld not wish discourage any suggestion which might form basis agreement between Israel and Jordan and at same time safeguard legitimate world interest in Jerusalem. Accordingly, Del might inquire of Garreau more specifically re reactions Israel and Jordan, perhaps asking him to consult with them further. If it appears Garreau Plan contains possibilities of agreement, Garreau shld be urged privately to continue discussions with Israel and Jordan outside Council. On other hand, if it becomes clear Garreau scheme offers no possibilities as basis of agreement, Council shld not become involved in considering it, since it wld be not only unacceptable to parties, but wld carry additional liability of being questionable as regards its compatibility with GA res.

3. From the foregoing it fols that it wld be preferable for Council not to engage in detailed discussion of Garreau Plan, but for Garreau himself to discuss it as fully as may be useful with Israel and Jordan. Dept hopes it will be possible avoid vote in TC on question compatibility with GA res. If, however, question is pressed toward vote, Del shld take position it is unnecessary and undesirable for Council to vote on question, noting that Garreau Plan is only a “suggestion”, that Garreau has not asked for Plan to be dealt with as an entity but rather that his points be taken to be in connection with reexamination draft statute (Tcdel 48),⁶ and that what is needed is some indication of reactions Israel and Jordan as well as of world community. Del shld also point out that even if doubts may exist as to consistency of Garreau Plan in present form with GA res, further modification of Plan might eliminate such doubts; and that if Israel and Jordan shld find acceptable a plan along lines Garreau Plan, possibility of its being considered by TC for appropriate action should not at this stage be precluded. If, however, vote is taken, Del shld abstain, explaining position as above.

4. If no agreement can be reached between Israel and Jordan and if TC stalemate results, Dept believes no useful purpose wld be served by a special session GA. Best course wld then appear to be to carry over Jerusalem item to June session TC in order give time for additional negots and further efforts at settlement.

5. Re organization of TC to prepare statute, Dept concurs with suggestions contained second para Tcdel 49.⁷

Acheson

1. This telegram was repeated to the United States Mission at the United Nations.
2. Dated January 30, not printed; but see editorial note, p. 710.
3. Identified also as telegram 161, January 31, from Geneva, not printed; it stated that Gideon Raphael, Alternate Israeli Representative to the Palestine Conciliation Commission, had called on Ambassador Sayre the same morning on instructions from his government. He opined that the handling of the Jerusalem question would be expedited if a subcommittee were appointed to examine the Garreau and other plans and report to the Council. He stated that Israel, if invited, would participate in its work; and sought the support of the United States Delegation for creation of a subcommittee. Ambassador Sayre was noncommittal in reply (350/1–3150).
4. Identified also as telegram 162, January 31, from Geneva, p. 716.
5. Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. vi, p. 1551.
6. Dated January 30, not printed; but see editorial note, p. 710.

7. American Delegation spokesmen, on February 6, inquired of President Garreau concerning Jordanian and Israeli reaction to his suggestions. The latter replied that he had received no Jordanian reaction. The Israelis, he said, had rejected the suggestions as they then stood but had not closed the door. He expressed the opinion that “Israel will eventually agree to some international regime which is between full internationalization and what Israel presently offers, provided Jordan will agree.”

   President Garreau advised also of a visit from a Vatican emissary, on February 4, who indicated that the Vatican continued to advocate full internationalization, did not accept the Garreau Plan, and would not consider a change in its position at this time. Nonetheless, he gained the impression that the Vatican might alter its position if some middle ground could be found on which all parties would agree (telegram 205, identified also as Tcdel 62, February 7, from Geneva (350/2–750).