867N.01/3–847: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
priority
217. Urtel 71, March 6, 6 p. m. Johnson1 conveyed Department’s views informally to Cadogan yesterday.
With particular reference to numbered paragraph 2, Johnson explained to Cadogan that we felt it essential that the problem of Palestine be formulated by the British Government with an analysis which would indicate how the British Government considered that it might be dealt with by the UN and what they would hope and expect the UN might accomplish toward solution of the problem. Cadogan said that he would report these views immediately to his Government and would have to await instructions before giving us his reply. He suggested that the UK Government might request an immediate meeting of the GA. He seemed skeptical, however, of the efficacy of such a proceeding.
He conceded that legality of Lie’s proposal is debatable. He was not critical of the suggestions for possible action by Lie in your numbered paragraphs 3 and 4 of telegram under reference, but did not understand what we mean by the suggestion for an “informal committee” of representatives of various member governments in New York mentioned in your paragraph 4. This suggestion was not clear to Johnson either, who suggested that no importance should be attached to the word “committee”, but that it should be taken as a suggestion that Lie might wish to consult closely with representatives of member governments in New York who had interest in the Palestine problem and were in possession of valuable information. It was felt that Lie would have no authority to set up even an informal “committee” of representatives of member nations in New York.
In full agreement with Cadogan, Johnson conveyed Department’s views also to SYG Lie. Lie said that if the British follow our suggestion, he will proceed immediately along the lines suggested by the Department. He informed Johnson that the Russians had yesterday agreed to his original suggestion. Lie accepted apparently without resentment our suggestion that his proposal might be of doubtful legal validity, and said that he did not want to take any action which did not [Page 1063] have the unanimous agreement of five permanent members SC, as such agreement was essential to any hope of success.2
- Herschel V. Johnson, Deputy United States Representative, with the rank of Ambassador, in the United Nations Security Council. During the absence of Senator Austin, he served as Acting United States Representative at the United Nations.↩
- In telegram 1241, March 19, the Department informed the Embassy in London that “Our attitude on UN procedure re Palestine as expressed to Cadogan and SYG arose from consideration that report of any ad hoc committee constituted in manner suggested by SYG, or as result of circularization of members as distinct from action by GA as a body, might be criticized by some of UN and in other quarters as lacking Charter foundation. It would be unfortunate to have any serious question arise regarding legality UN consideration Palestine question at any stage proceedings …. Our basic attitude is that we would like to see UN give fundamental consideration Palestine problem soon as possible. In considering question procedure in as definite manner as we can in absence Brit formulation problem to UN, we have given some thought to idea of special, brief session of GA restricted to single agenda item of formation of fairly large but workable ad hoc committee to consider problem and make recommendations to GA at regular Sept session. Such committee might consist delegates countries represented in SC, TRUSTCO and ECOSOC. Ad hoc committee might appoint small ‘neutral’ subcommittee to assemble documents, hold hearings and visit Palestine in order to establish essential facts for consideration parent committee.” (867N.01/3–1147)↩