501.BB Palestine/3–1749
Mr. John W. Halderman to the Acting Assistant Chief of the Division of Dependent Area Affairs (Cargo)
Dear Bill: The enclosed paper,1 prepared by me in consultation with the delegation and Bill Burdett, and also the French member of the Jerusalem Committee and the French Consul General, was submitted to the Jerusalem Committee on the third. I emphasized that it was not an American proposal, but simply a working paper to serve as a basis of discussion.
The Committee has now approved the first part. The purpose of this section (under “I”) was to enable the Committee to arrive at a general basic position prior to undertaking talks with the states concerned. Now that this preliminary stage has been reached, we are taking steps to get in touch with Israeli and Transjordanese representatives, and hope to be able to discuss the matter with the other Arab states in Beirut later on this month.
I envision these talks as the real beginning of the work on the Jerusalem problem. Up to now we have had nothing but general statements in which Governments have presented their positions much as they do in General Assembly debates. We hope that when we get together in more of a negotiating atmosphere, and get down to actual cases, opportunities may be presented to work out something. We also plan to urge Israel and TJ to proceed at once to a division of the city into Jewish and Arab areas, which may become administrative areas in the permanent regime of the city. We will suggest that our consuls are available as a committee of experts to assist in this. I understood from General Riley when he was here that they would not undertake this matter in the Rhodes talks, but even if they do touch upon it, the fact that we are in touch with the respective Governments here should avoid any confusion.
When I said that the Committee had approved the first part of the paper, I should have added that they did so with the amendments indicated on the copy enclosed. The deletion concerning the suggested court is rather interesting, as it resulted from a fundamental different approach on my part from that of the French and Turks. It seemed to me most natural that when there are conflicts of jurisdiction, the differences should be settled judicially. However, they are not accustomed to this idea, and would leave the decision in the hands of the U.N. authority—the executive branch, so to speak. I don’t think they [Page 794] feel very strongly about it. The deletion was made because it did not seem essential to decide upon it right now.
Another point which may be difficult is the French desire to have an international police subject to the United Nations authority. So far they haven’t been precise about it, except that they feel there should definitely be such police in those Holy Places which shelter more than one religion or sect. In particular they mention the Holy Sepulchre, and they have given me startling stories of the jealousies and actual conflicts that occur there.
I [have] already reported by telegram the point made to me by the French in our private consultation that the United Nations authority should consist of a committee consisting of representatives of the U.S., France, Turkey, an Arab and a Jew.2 This is the reason why, in the working paper, I merely referred to a “United Nations Authority”, without describing it.
The second part of this paper is also intended to serve as a basis of discussion among ourselves and so that we will have various points in mind when we undertake our consultations. We haven’t yet discussed this part of the paper, except that the French member raised an objection to having the U.N. Authority report to the Trusteeship Council. In his view, the Trusteeship Council is associated with areas incapable of self-government, and not yet ready for independence. We did not debate the point, as it was really out of order, as he admitted.
Our general plan is gradually to develop a plan for Jerusalem as a result of our own work, and the consultations we will have. We hope that as a result of these consultations, the plan, when complete, will be acceptable to both sides, as well, of course, as to the U.N. This is being optimistic. We have little reason to expect, up to now, that the parties will give at all. But assuming we are successful to this extent, it would be possible to appoint the U.N. representative provided for in the resolution, and then appoint some committees of eminent experts in various fields to collaborate with him in working out detailed plans in such fields as public utilities, finance, etc. This is mostly to acquaint [Page 795] you a general line of thought, mostly my own at this point, though we have had some very general discussion along these lines in the Committee.
[Here follow personal observations and a request for comments on the letter.]
Sincerely yours,
- Below.↩
- The telegram referred to is No. 185 (identified also as Palun 66), March 2, 6 p. m., from Jerusalem. At one point in the telegram it is stated that the “French objected to single UN representative on grounds inadequate to responsibilities, insufficient prestige, inadequate representation Christian interest … no certainty who representative would be, might well be Latin American, no strong objection to this, but would not have tradition of interest Jerusalem comparable, for example, to France, US. French-Turkish formula would exclude Soviet, and inclusion US should satisfy divergent Christian elements with interest in Jerusalem.… In defending single UN representative we did not state doubt US willingness continue official responsibility as Commission member for Jerusalem indefinitely. We considered five member commission unwieldy, and mistake to appoint representative on basis nationality. Should be person of proved ability to get along with both sides.” (501.BB Palestine/3–249)↩