IO Files: US/A/AC.21/45
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Samuel K. C. Kopper
I. Palestine
Mr. Chamoun told me this afternoon that he was somewhat concerned about the possibility of the Security Council finding a threat to the peace existing in Palestine and while taking action with respect to such a threat implementing the partition plan as a byproduct. I replied that in so far as the United States position was concerned, Ambassador Austin’s statement yesterday clearly indicated that the United States did not believe the Security Council had the power to enforce a recommendation. On the other hand, however, we did feel that the Charter very definitely granted power to the Security Council to deal with threats to the peace. In so far as the Palestine situation was concerned, the Council could take action with respect to any threat which it determined existed there. The maintenance of peace, however, was not the same as the enforcement of partition. Mr. Chamoun did not seem to be convinced. I tried to point out that it was rather difficult to make it clear to him, since the Council action would depend on existing facts but would be limited within the powers granted to the Council by the Charter.
Mr. Chamoun said he did not like the resolution introduced by the United States this afternoon. I said it followed the speech made by Ambassador Austin yesterday. He again reiterated his concern about whether the Council would implement partition while seeking to maintain peace. I said the question of maintenance of international peace was very important. I said that it was of deep concern to the United States Government that there be no aggression from without Palestine because it was incumbent upon the Council to take action with respect to breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.
[Here follows Section II dealing with another subject.]