330/5–1051: Telegram
The Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Gross) to the Department of State
priority
1516. Re Syrian-Israeli dispute: Following is result of US-UK-French consultation at adviser level yesterday afternoon on text of resolution as contained Deptel 891 of May 11 (agreement subject to dels’ clearance, but in most cases UK adviser had cleared del position):
Agreement without change on paras 1 through 5, 8, 11, and 13.
[Page 674]Paragraph 6 to read: “Calls on Govts of Israel and Syria to bring before MAC or its chairman, whichever has the pertinent responsibility under Armistice Agreement, the complaints of which SC presently seized and to abide by decisions resulting therefrom.” UKFO has instructed it wishes words “except that alluded to in para 9 of this resolution” omitted since some details connected with retaliatory bombing may be fit subjects for MAC or chairman’s action. French had no strong opinion but inclined toward omitting words.
Paragraph 7: UKFO has instructed del it concurs with our suggested replacement of words “reminds Govt of Israel” by “considers”. French preferred original wording but would put our amendment and UK concurrence thereto to Quai d’Orsay.
Paragraph 9: French and British accepted our inclusion of reference to July 15, 1948 cease-fire resolution, but felt some allusion must be made to recent TSO reports of further Israel bombing of Syrian territory and indications Syrian Army may be participating in hostilities. British accordingly suggested following redraft of paragraph 9:
“Brings to the attention of the Governments of Syria and Israel their obligations under Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations and their commitments under the Armistice Agreement not to resort to military force:
“finds that
- (a) Aerial action taken by forces of the Government of Israel on April 5, 1951, and
- (b) Any aggressive military actions by either of the parties in or around the demilitarized zone, which further investigation by the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization into the reports and complaints recently submitted to the Council may establish, constitute a violation of the cease-fire provided in the Security Council Resolution of July 15, 1948 and are inconsistent with the terms of the Armistice Agreement and the obligations assumed under the Charter.”
Word “aggressive” suggested by French, as recognition of right of self-defense. When we pointed out language of redraft did not declare present of military or para-military forces in demilitarized zone, if proven, to be violation of Armistice Agreement, French replied numerous other violations, such as reported second aerial bombing of Syrian territory, not cited.
Paragraph 10: Changes suggested mytels 14852 (para 5) and 14863 (last para) accepted by British and French.
Paragraph 12: Omission of words “at end of thirty days” accepted by British and French.
Re possible new paragraph 4 suggested mytel 1485, neither British nor French liked. UK feared its inclusion might prejudice authority [Page 675] of MAC and French said it does not accord with Quai d’Orsay’s desire to throw fullest emphasis possible on authority of MAC. We accordingly dropped it.
Re new paragraph of urtel 894, May 2:4 British and French accepted replacement of “calls to the attention of Israel the view of the Council” by “considers” and replacement of “requested” by “required” before “in the pursuance.”
New paragraph suggested in beginning urtel 905:5 British and French had had doubts over Riley’s being authorized to make representations to parties while still here, but in view of his imminent departure and his declared liking for paragraph, hoped their governments would accept.
These new paragraphs would be numbered 11 and 13, respectively, and present 11, 12 and 13 would become 12, 14 and 15, respectively.
UK suggested paragraph, reported in revised form by mytel 1498,6 May 7, was withdrawn by UKDel. French concurred in withdrawal.
French propose to submit to colleagues tomorrow two paragraphs embodying desire to “reinforce authority of MAC” and “avoid difficulties of interpretation of Armistice Agreement by parties”. They apparently working on paragraph declaring sovereignty not being “exercised” in zone by either party.
Timetable: Results recorded above are subject to review and possible change by governments, but three co-sponsors seem in general to be thinking along same lines. In fact, UKFO has indicated general agreement our thinking, except for new para 9 drafting which, of course, it has not seen. French seem to be concentrating their attention on two points mentioned in immediately preceding para and appear not to feel deeply about rest, although del, at least, seems inclined make faces at Israelis. With luck we may have agreement on resolution by Friday evening or Saturday morning. Co-sponsors might then at once show it in confidence to other SC members seeking del comment (not, however, with view to modification unless sharp divergency arose) so that members would have earliest opportunity seek instructions. We would show resolution to parties Monday, and call [Page 676] for meeting 15th to table resolution, deliver our statements and probably hear from parties. If no important amendments submitted (parties will probably try to have their respective views written in as on May 8) and other members finish speaking, resolution might be voted May 16. If no, we should try to break into Comite 1 AMC deliberations for half-day to finish. Haste is indicated since Riley, who hopes to depart for Palestine 13th, holds that he will be unable to get parties’ serious attention to complaints until SC has finished action on present agenda.
- Ante, p. 652.↩
- Dated May 3, p. 658.↩
- The last paragraph of this telegram, also of May 3, reads as follows: “Further to mytel 1485, Riley approves language para 10 of draft res with following additional modifications: omit ‘without their consent’ following ‘from demilitarized zone’ in sub-para A; and insert ‘chairman of the’ before ‘Mixed Armistice Commission’ in sub-para B.” (357.AC/5–351)↩
- See footnote 3, p. 654.↩
-
Dated May 5. The section mentioned reads as follows:
“Dept believes fol new para shld be added to draft res preferably to follow present para 11: ‘Directs the Chief of Staff of TSO to take the necessary steps to effect the implementation of this resolution for the purpose of restoring peace in the Area, and authorizes him to make such representations to the govts of Israel and Syria as he may deem necessary’.
“Dept has in mind possibility such authorization will empower Riley to undertake negotiations with Syria and Israel reps here in this country and issue directives to de Ridder in Palestine until such time as Riley may be able return to his post.” (330/5–551)
↩ - Not printed, but see footnote 1, p. 680.↩