501.AA/7–1146: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Secretary of State, at Paris
u.s. urgent
3373. Secdel 455. In view of application of Trans-Jordan for membership in UN received July 5, we have to establish our attitude without delay and I am sending memorandum to President requesting his views.3 I should appreciate knowing your thoughts in advance of beginning of SC Committee discussion on membership on July 15.
As you are aware, we have had correspondence with Senator Myers regarding Trans-Jordan and he has introduced resolution containing request that executive take no action in any way recognizing Trans-Jordan as separate or independent state and that US representative on UN be instructed to seek postponement of international determination of status of Trans-Jordan area until future status of Palestine as a whole will be determined.
We also have received a long detailed legal argument from Rabbis Wise and Silver4 objecting to independence of Trans-Jordan.
Dept was informed in Brit Embassy Aide-Mémoire of June 26 that Trans-Jordan Govt intended to apply for admission to UN in near future; that it had taken this decision on its own initiative; that its application would have support of Brit Govt; and that in view of FO for reasons given in considerable detail Trans-Jordan fully satisfied requirements for membership in UN.
Brit Embassy has also furnished Dept with paraphrase of instructions to Cadogan on subject. He was told to convey gist of foregoing [Page 412] to US colleague in order to persuade him to support Trans-Jordan in SC using following arguments:
“We note that US Govt apparently think they will have to vote for Outer Mongolia in last resort. Transjordan, whose territory and record is open to all world is surely a more respectable candidate than Outer Mongolia, which is a quite unknown factor, and with whom western states have not hitherto been allowed to have any dealings. We think it would be deplorable if Outer Mongolia were admitted and Transjordan were not, and that this would incidentally encourage Soviet Govt to put up a Constituent Republic next year as their price for agreeing to Transjordan.”
Our tentative view is that, although legal position is not clear-cut in view of lack of precedents and differences in interpretation of treaties and other international obligations and can be argued ad infinitum, following considerations are important:
- 1.
- Non-applicability to Trans-Jordan of portions of Palestine mandate relating to Jewish National Home since 1922, plus existence of independent Arab Govt in Trans-Jordan since 1923, have resulted in evolution of Trans-Jordan distinct and separate from that of Palestine proper.
- 2.
- Assembly of UN, including US, welcomed Brit intention to declare Trans-Jordan independent. Subsequently League of Nations at final session last spring in effect recognized Trans-Jordan independence as accomplished.
- 3.
- We could if we desired abstain from voting on question of Trans-Jordan admittance on ground that lapse of time is required to establish its qualifications for UN membership. Our abstention in this case would, if otherwise desirable, be consistent with our long-range objective looking toward clear right of permanent member of Council to abstain from voting on substantive decisions without this constituting veto.6 You and Mr. Cohen7 are of course familiar with this issue. Brit and Arab States however might well question our refusal to vote for Trans-Jordan in view of our previous agreement to admit two constituent Soviet republics, India and Philippines and our present plan to vote in certain circumstances for admission of Outer Mongolia. (See Deptel 3276 Secdel 412 July 5 pgh 2–c.)
- 4.
- Our failure to vote for Trans-Jordan admittance would almost certainly give rise to serious repercussions against us in Arab world and would tend to weaken position of Great Brit and ourselves in Middle East. We feel that in view of international situation we should vote in favor of admission even though such action will arouse storm [Page 413] of protest among certain powerful Zionist groups in US and elsewhere and will result in criticism from various members of Congress who are supporting more extreme Zionists. Do you concur?
Supplemental telegram on other phases of membership question will follow.