357.AC/3–2450: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Delegation to the Palestine Conciliation Commission, at Geneva
secret
Washington, March
24, 1950—6 p. m.
385. Unpal 247. In response Palun 338 and 3401 and as supplement Unpal 2462 Dept has further comments on proposals and tactics now under consideration by PCC.
- 1.
- We believe approach to Arabs and Israel of Secretariat draft (Palun 338) represents move which could possibly result in resumption of conciliation efforts by PCC.
- 2.
- As indicated Unpal 246, however, Dept has real question whether it is wise for PCC submit proposal to both sides in such form and in so formal a manner as require governmental response from all parties of acceptance or rejection. It wld seem from here that merit of proposal lies in its informality and in fact that it can be construed by both sides in way that each wld like construe it. That is to say, Arab states cld interpret new method as essentially meeting their request that PCC submit proposals to parties and Israel can construe it as meeting essentially its desire that direct negots be started. Thus, it is our view that Comms suggestion by its nature must not be too categorical and if to be acquiesced in by both sides must contain to some degree that which each side wants. If suggestion couched in such formal language or if presented parties in too formal a way requiring type of searching analysis necessary for formal acceptance or rejection, we believe merit of idea will be lost to large degree. Further, if proposal submitted formally and rejected PCC wld be in worse position than if this approach had not been tried.
- 3.
- Same reasoning applies to Boisanger and Yalcin idea that PCC’s proposal to be effective must be published in press. If published and analyzed in press, emphasis may be placed on that part of proposal which parties do not like and parties may ignore aspects of proposal which meet their desires. Dept questions whether public reaction to press account wld have effect of increasing chances of acceptance of PCC suggestion either by Arab states or by Israel. Further, in Dept’s view optimum role of PCC is that of available catalyst and good officer, remaining in unobtrusive background rather than in center of stage.
- 4.
- Dept also questions philosophy apparently underlying Boisanger and Yalcin approach that Secretariat paper represents only course open to PCC (Palun 338). Dept’s view of potential of PCC is that it shld continue seek different ways in which it can proceed and that certainly not at this stage is there only one last clear chance for PCC bring parties together. Dept has always recognized that it is unlikely that work of PCC will result in successful settlement this year. At same time we think it eminently worthwhile that PCC remain in being in area for purpose probing attitudes parties in consistent effort find some method which will make progress toward settlement. Thus, Dept hopes you can impress upon other members PCC its possibilities are by no means exhausted and will not be even though current proposal gets nowhere. There is always possibility activities UNPRA will be helpful in adjusting parties attitude to one of moderation and conciliation. Necessarily effects of UNPRA’s work will be felt only slowly and by degrees.
- 5.
- As far as proposed trip ME concerned review situation with govt leaders in Arab capitals and Israel, Dept believes this wld be useful idea. Conversations in capitals cld be used as opportunity further discussion proposal which we assume wld be given reps of parties in Geneva before departure on trip. Conversations likely be more fruitful if proposal is put forward as merely another suggestion find avenue for progress rather than as decisive or revolutionary step in Commission’s work. Indeed, in presenting proposal to reps in Geneva, Commission can make clear that discussion of it cld take place between PCC and govt leaders in capitals. This wld insure flexibility and emphasize that it was ambulatory instrument subject to modification to meet desires of parties rather than rigid document requiring yes or no answer. It cld be impressed upon them that all PCC is seeking is their acquiescence in method of procedure which in PCC’s view might provide an opportunity for progress. PCC is not seeking a commitment from them which cld in any way prejudice their substantive positions nor is it necessary for them give formal acceptance to proposed procedure.
- 6.
- Dept believes it wld be undesirable for US rep to make trip alone as Chairman PCC. Also, Dept does not think Boisanger alone wld be effective. Accordingly, best solution wld appear have PCC as such make trip rather than send single individual as its rep. If Yalcin does not wish go, Dept sees no objection to Boisanger and US rep making visits together. Dept wld hope however if PCC goes as such it wld make visits as informal as possible with minimum staff, etc.
Acheson