Office of the Historian

501.BB Palestine/2–2748

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by Mr. Robert M. McClintock

top secret
[Washington,] February 27, 1948.
Participants: U—Mr. Lovett
USUN—Mr. Rusk1

Mr. Rusk telephoned Mr. Lovett at 9:30 a. m. to inquire the Department’s reaction to USUN’s top secret 214, Feb. 26, and its confidential telegram 215 of the same date, which set forth the proposed Belgian and French amendments to the US resolution on Palestine of February 25. Mr. Lovett said that he desired to discuss these telegrams further with Messrs. Henderson and McClintock and that he would shortly call Mr. Rusk.

After some discussion Mr. Lovett then telephoned Mr. Rusk2 and established the following position:

1.
The US Delegate should vote against the first Belgian-French amendment, which calls for deletion of paragraph 1 of the US resolution. It was agreed that in all probability this Belgian-French amendment would fail to receive the necessary seven affirmative votes in the Council.
2.
When the US resolution came to vote paragraph by paragraph, Ambassador Austin should vote for paragraph 1, but should not make any impassioned speeches in its defense. His remarks should be confined to restating quietly and clearly what had already been said in his address of February 24. Mr. Rusk interjected that the Delegation was under strong pressure from sideline advisers to become apoplectic in its approach but clearly understood the instructions from the Under Secretary.
3.
In Mr. Rusk’s opinion paragraph 1 of the US resolution would fail to pass the Council and attention would then center on the second paragraph of our resolution on which the French and Belgian delegations wished to submit other amendments. These were discussed:
a.
It was agreed to accept the second Belgian-French amendment to insert after the word “establish” in paragraph 2 of the US resolution the words “in the light of the said resolution of the General Assembly,”
b.
It was agreed to accept the additional words “should circumstances permit” at the termination of sub-paragraph 2(a) of the US resolution, provided that the semi-colon were deleted precedent to this clause, as otherwise the clause would modify sub-para. 2 (b) of the US resolution.
c.
No objection was raised to the Belgian-French proposal to add a new sub-paragraph 2(d): “to give advice to the Security [Page 664] Council as to the action to be taken by the latter in the matter.”3

Mr. Lovett inquired of Mr. Rusk what the position should be on the Colombian draft resolution of February 24 which would call for a special session of the General Assembly to reconsider the resolution of November 29, 1947. Mr. Rusk said that the US should not be in a position of vetoing this resolution and therefore he proposed that the Delegation abstain. Mr. Lovett agreed to this procedure but later requested Mr. McClintock to telephone Mr. Rusk and make clear that our attitude should be plainly set forth in the Council that we were opposed at this stage to the Colombian resolution.4 If it were possible to vote against that resolution without our negative vote being construed as a veto we should do so. This information was imparted to Mr. Rusk by phone at 10:50 a. m.

  1. At New York.↩
  2. At 9:50 a. m. (Marginal notation by Mr. McClintock on telegram 214 from New York.)↩
  3. The proposed resolution was introduced by Belgian Representative Nisot on February 27; for text, see United Nations, Official Records of the Security Council, Third Year, Supplement for January, February and March 1948, p. 30. The resolution was virtually identical with that of the United States proposal of February 25, except for the deletion of paragraph numbered one and the addition of a clause to paragraph (c), which read “to report thereon to the Security Council together with any recommendation as to the action to be taken by the Council in the matter.” Mr. Nisot, in introducing his resolution, noted that Paragraph 1 of the United States proposal would require the Council to take a position before knowing the results of the work of the Committee of the five Great Powers, which it was instructing to investigate the situation (SC, 3rd yr., Nos. 16–35, p. 357).↩
  4. The Colombian Representative withdrew his resolution on February 27 (ibid., p. 365).↩