51. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom1
5223. Re: UNRWA (Delga 544).2 Over past three weeks USDel has been consulting with UNSYG and potential co-sponsors on UNRWA resolution. Basic element of US position is that with expiration of UNRWA mandate in June 1960 in mind UN should begin planning how best handle refugee problem after that date. This would involve careful study leading to recommendations which we hope could be presented to 14th G A for its consideration. In view complexity UNRWA operation we believe 14th GA is last opportunity decision can be made for approach after mid 1960 without risk of interrupting flow services to refugees. This concurs with opinions expressed in UNRWA Director’s annual report3 which is subject of Special Political Committee’s discussion over past three weeks. Number of Delegations agree with this approach, including potential co-sponsors of our draft resolution—UK, Netherlands and New Zealand. Arabs have all opposed idea of study, claiming it might result in situation less favorable to them than present one, which they say should be continued beyond 1960. Now, position UK (Beeley) has apparently been reversed. Beeley has indicated to USDel he cannot co-sponsor any resolution such as ours, that “alludes to political aspects of problem”. He believes UK can support study on rehabilitation and relief after 1960 which, he expects, would lead to recommendation UNRWA be extended in some form.
US draft resolution as discussed with co-sponsors and Arabs (1) provides for continued operation of UNRWA over next year as in past (2) states need for careful study of problem in light past experience and observations in Director’s annual report with view presenting to next GA recommendations concerning steps that should be taken by UN and members regarding future welfare of refugees after 1960, bearing in mind rights of parties as recognized in past GA resolutions (3) requests SYG designate person undertake study (4) requests this person confer with Israel re implementation para 11 of resolution 194 (right of refugees to repatriation or compensation), and with Arabs re implementation para 4 resolution 393 (without prejudice to resolution 194, reintegration of refugees into economic life of Near East is essential [Page 121] preparation for time when international assistance no longer available).4
We have indicated to SYG and potential co-sponsors we would agree to deletion of word “study” from text to meet Arab objections on clear understanding SYG would in fact have study undertaken. We already had acceded to strong wish SYG, apparently shared by potential co-sponsors, that our original idea of group as study facility be abandoned in favor of individual.
Throughout consultations Arabs, as every year over past, have taken negative approach to suggestions that do not wholly meet their position. On basis past experience we would not expect Arabs do more than abstain on our resolution at best; we would be prepared face their opposition if necessary rather than abandon idea of study.
US position on extension UNRWA fully described by USDel (Harrison) before Special Political Committee November 105 as follows: UNRWA had done heroic job provide relief and some rehabilitation. Latter has resulted in taking limited number refugees off relief rolls but not enough to counter-balance natural growth refugee population. Meanwhile world has contributed $300 million (US $200 million of this). There must be found some better system than UNRWA that will greatly accelerate rate at which refugees made self-supporting. This will require careful study and advance planning. US recognizes refugees will continue be problem after 1960 and expects sustain its interest in them after that date.
Beeley has expressed to USDel view that Arabs hold trump card in that US in final analysis will not refuse provide funds to assist refugees. We do not fully share this view. US is not now in position make or accept any commitment as to extent or means of helping refugees after 1960.
Embassy requested discuss above urgently with FonOff with view maintaining coordinated US–UK approach. While we do not doubt Beeley following position his government, we are inclined believe US position might not fully have been conveyed to UK by UKDel. Department has already explained our views UK Embassy (Gadel 147 to USUN repeated 5207 London).6
[Page 122]USUN authorized use any of above in future conversation British to indicate firmness our position, emphasizing importance we attach to UK co-sponsorship our resolution.
FYI Department will determine in light UK reaction whether it desirable for US submit resolution on its own. End FYI.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 320.511/11–2858. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Gamon; cleared with Ludlow, Rockwell, and EUR; and signed for Dulles by Walmsley. Repeated to USUN.↩
- Delga 544, November 26, summarized further discussions of the U.S. Delegation on the UNRWA resolution. (Ibid., 320.13/11–2658)↩
- For text of this report, see U.N. Doc. A/3931.↩
- For text of Resolution 194, December 11, 1948, see A Decade of American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1941–1949, rev. ed., pp. 718–719; for text of Resolution 393, December 2, 1950, see American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1950–1955, pp. 2257–2259.↩
- See footnote 2, Document 48.↩
- Gadel 147, November 26, reported that British and French Embassy representatives had discussed the UNRWA resolution with Department of State officers the preceding day. (Department of State, Central Files, 320.13/11–2658) On December 2, the Embassy in London reported that it had discussed the matter with the Foreign Office which did not disavow Beeley’s statement, but thought the question could best be worked out in New York by the respective U.N. delegations. (Telegram 2983; ibid., 320.511/12–258)↩