501.BB Palestine/6–148: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
niact
350. British Embassy has made oral representation here today soliciting our support of UK interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of SC resolution of May 29 along lines of paragraph 2, Douglas’s telegram 2368, May 31. (Reference Deptel 348, May 31, 9 p. m.1).
British request that we either support their interpretation in SC or, failing that, do not oppose their interpretation.
You are authorized to state in SC, but only if necessary, our view of meaning of paragraphs 3 and 4 of SC resolution of May 29 in terms [Page 1087] set forth in Deptel 348 (sent London for action as 2015, May 31). However, we should much prefer at this delicate juncture that SC does not get involved in debate as to interpretation. We feel it far preferable that questions of interpretation of SC resolution of May 29 be left to UN Mediator in Palestine, Count Bernadotte, and would prefer that you suggest this course of action if situation should arise.
Repeated Haifa as 94, Jerusalem as 518, Beirut as 285, Damascus as 202, Cairo as 690, with request that Count Bernadotte be apprised of our foregoing views and also interpretation set forth Deptel 348 (Sent London as 2015).2 Repeated London for info as 2026, Paris as 1898, Baghdad as 179, Jidda as 212, Brussels as 833, Moscow as 620.
- This was a repeat of 2015 to London, p. 1082.↩
- The question of the interpretation of
Articles 3 and 4 continued to agitate the Department. On June 2,
Messrs. Sandifer and McClintock discussed the matter further by
telephone with Mr. Ross at New York. Mr. McClintock’s memorandum of
the conversation states: “Although from an ideal point of view we
should prefer that no men of military age should enter the countries
mentioned during the four-week period of cease-fire, if there were
legitimate need to permit the entry of men of military age to take
up exclusively civilian pursuits this should be possible provided
there were adequate safeguards to ensure that these men were not to
be used for military service.
“With the approval of Mr. Lovett, the following language was submitted as making this position more clear:
“‘Paragraphs 3 and 4 do not preclude the admission of men of military age for exclusively civilian purposes provided this is carried out in good faith in light of the acceptance of the obligations of these paragraphs by the parties, and under supervision of the UN Mediator.’” (501.BB Palestine/6–248)
↩