501.BB Palestine/11–348: Telegram
The United States Delegation to the Acting Secretary of State
niact
Delga 591. Eyes alone for Lovett from Rusk. Secretary met this evening with Austin, Dulles, Mrs. Roosevelt, Jessup, Cohen, Bohlen, Gross and staff to discuss US position in SC Thursday afternoon. Staff here, after careful study Subcommittee Draft Resolution1 and assessment general situation with other delegations and attitude of parties recommended to Secretary that we make effort to obtain three changes:
First, to change word “endorses” at beginning fourth paragraph to read “takes note of”. This change would remove inconsistency between present fourth and fifth paragraphs, since preciseness of Acting Mediator’s request would constitute serious limitation upon flexibility intended for him in fifth paragraph.
Second, to add following language after words “interested governments” in fifth paragraph: “Without prejudice to their rights, claims or position with regard to a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine or to the position which members of the Security Council may wash to take in the General Assembly on such peaceful adjustment”. Purpose this change to separate issue of truce from final settlement and to resist charge that we are trying to frame final settlement under guise truce enforcement. Eban told us today McNeil told him that UK was pressing resolution in direct connection final disposal Negeb. If true, this would seriously embarrass us because we are dealing with matter as straight truce matter.
Third, as an alternative last paragraph: “Appoints a Committee of the Council, consisting of the five permanent members together with Belgium and Colombia to advise the Acting Mediator with regard to his responsibilities under this resolution, and in the event that either party or both should fail to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution, to study as a matter of urgency and to report to the council on further measures it would be appropriate to take under Chapter VII of the Charter”. This change would provide some safeguard on very wide discretion given Mediator in previous paragraph, would not require such committee to undertake immediate study of sanctions, and would use general term Chapter VII rather than Article 41.2
Group named first paragraph agreed changes suggested by staff would greatly improve resolution from our point of view and, although [Page 1544] one or two might have had reservations, no serious divergence now appears likely within USDel here.
No need to remind you that considerable differences between present resolution, particularly if our changes are accepted, and original text gives us opportunity to offset prospective charge that another reversal has occurred if we support truce resolution. Number of Israel objections have now been met and issue is narrowed down to simple question truce observance on which our attitude has never been in doubt.
In private conversation this evening, Bunche remarked that he could usually tell from attitude of Eban what success Eban was having from US. He added that Eban had been conciliatory today, from which he gathered that we had been firm with Eban on truce observance. We had, in fact, insisted strongly with Eban this morning that truce was vital and that SC could not compromise on such fundamental issue.
Secretary indicated to group that he considered our instructions permitted us to seek amendments of the nature indicated so long as the integrity of basic truce was not endangered. We have not been able as yet to learn attitude of sponsors of resolution toward our suggested changes, but will forward this as soon as possible. [Rusk.]