890i.01/6–1046

The British Embassy to the Department of State

Aide-Mémoire

It may be of interest to the State Department to learn that His Majesty’s Embassy recently brought to the attention of the Foreign Office certain criticism of His Majesty’s Government’s action in recognising the independence of Trans Jordan and have received from the Foreign Office the following reply.

2.
In general His Majesty’s Government take the view that these criticisms are answered by the fact that (a) their intention to grant independence to Transjordan was announced at an early session of the United Nations Assembly in London, where it was not challenged by any delegate, and (b) that the final assembly of the League of Nations passed a resolution approving and welcoming this action.
3.
The Foreign Office have read with interest Mr. Byrnes’ letter to Senator Myers of the 23rd April on this subject, which has anticipated the various points they proposed to raise in reply and which, in their opinion, needs no amplification as a comprehensive and objective review of the matter at issue.
4.
The Foreign Office consider, however, that it may be useful to recall the full text of the resolution concerning mandates passed by the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva in April, which reads as follows:

“The Assembly … recalls the role of the League in assisting Iraq to progress from its status as a Mandate to a condition of complete independence, and welcomes the termination of the mandated status [Page 800]of Syria, the Lebanon and Transjordan, which have, since the last session of the Assembly, become independent members of the world community.”

5.
In the light of the above and of the welcome given by the United Nations Assembly in January to the announcement of His Majesty’s Government’s intention to recognise Transjordan as an independent State, (the U.S. Delegate at the United Nations Assembly voting in favour of this resolution), His Majesty’s Government feel that, in so far as general international approval is required for setting up Transjordan as an independent State, such approval has in fact been manifestly given.
6.
There remains the question of Zionist interests. Upon this point, His Majesty’s Government feel bound to reiterate that the clauses of the Palestine Mandate relating to the establishment of a Jewish national home were, with the approval of the League of Nations, never applied in Transjordan. His Majesty’s Government have therefore never considered themselves under any obligation to apply them there, nor indeed as having any power to do so unilaterally.
7.
The Foreign Office further point out that the Jewish Agency7 have no internationally recognised status in relation to Transjordan and that His Majesty’s Government were under no obligation to consult the Agency nor to secure its consent to the grant of Transjordan independence. Under the new dispensation, there is nothing to prevent Zionist interests from negotiating freely with the independent Transjordan Government to achieve their aims in Transjordan. The only innovation introduced by the treaty in this particular is the removal of the theoretical possibility that Jews might have been settled in Transjordan without the consent of the Transjordan Government and against the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory.
  1. For Palestine.