683.84A322/11–2053: Telegram
No. 736
The Secretary of
State to the United States
Mission at the United Nations1
249. Ambassador Zeineddine of Syria called at Department today to discuss elements Banat Yacov situation. He emphasized essence of Syrian attitude is that provisions Armistice Agreement re demilitarized zone must be fully upheld but that once this had been accomplished by appropriate SC action Syria would be entirely disposed to consider agreements which would permit equitable development Jordan River resources. Said Syria had no intention blocking projects merely for sake of blocking. All Syria asked was that she be accorded full status due her under Armistice Agreement and right to participate in decisions affecting demilitarized zone and established Syrian rights (such as Buteina Farm) outside zone but affected by actions inside zone.
[Page 1433]When Department suggested that too much emphasis on “military advantage” aspect of DZ disputes could logically prevent any development of upper Jordan, since any project would be likely to alter flow of water in river, Ambassador insisted Syria would not approach matter from that angle once her rights under Armistice Agreement had been upheld and recognized. Would be entirely willing approach projects with open mind and seek agreement with all interested parties. Pointed out Syria had been willing since 1949 discuss water problems with Israelis but had gotten nowhere. Claimed he spoke with full knowledge of and in agreement with Shishakli’s own views this subject.
Zeineddine urged following points be incorporated resolution to be adopted by Security Council re Banat Yacov:
- (1)
- Bennike’s authority to supervise DZ under Article 5 of Armistice Agreement should be upheld.
- (2)
- Phraseology should make clear Syria’s right to concur or dissent in actions which might change character of zone.
- (3)
- Bennike should be given authority, although perhaps in general language, to restore DZ to status quo prevailing before Banat Yacov diversion work begun in early September. (He explained this might mean destruction of diversion dam and possibly filling in of part or all of canal.)
- (4)
- Some warning of possible sanctions should be inserted in case Israel refused observe Council decision.
Re (1) Department officers said we substantially in agreement. Re (2) we expressed concern that this might involve Council in improper interpretation Armistice Agreement or even lay it open to charge of trying to modify agreement itself. Pointed out that agreement calls for interpretation by MAC and that it could only be modified by parties themselves. Zeineddine said all he meant was to exert pressure on Israel forcing it to go to MAC when contemplating DZ action, which Israel has steadfastly refused to do despite Armistice Agreement provisions. Said he would suggest phraseology for study by USUN.
Re (3) we indicated grave public relations difficulties in any action which appeared to call for destruction of completed work, pointing out this would be taken as indication Syria determined in advance to reject any agreement. He argued present state of affairs would permit Israel complete DZ construction in matter of few days if it should again decide to defy Bennike decision and UN and Syria would again be presented with fait accompli. Pointed out if Council upholds Bennike this means his decision should have been observed from beginning and that all work done even before his decision was improper. In such case court of law would order physical situation restored to status quo ante. He did not insist however [Page 1434] that Council should specifically direct this restoration but merely make clear that Bennike had authority to order it if he saw fit.
Re (4) we said Department would prefer assume both parties would observe Council decision and treat any failure comply as separate question to be examined if and when it arose. Ambassador commented he thought some warning justified by past history Palestine case and said he intended take this point up in Council.
There was no discussion re possible elimination demilitarized zones. We made clear to Ambassador any discussion of phraseology of resolution would have to be with USUN and that we were continuing to work on this question jointly with British and French. He commented he had had some discussion of his ideas with British and French delegations and believed any objections more likely to come from US than from them.
- Repeated to Damascus; sent by air pouch to Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Jidda, and Jerusalem.↩