Office of the Historian

501.BB Palestine/3–2449: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Legation in Lebanon

confidential
Washington, March 29, 1949—7 p. m.

156. Unpal 70. [For Ethridge.] Our preliminary reaction draft proposed SC res set forth Palun 95 Mar 24 and commented on in Palun 941 is favorable. We believe however this res shld seek to tie in all loose ends and leave no doubt but that functions and Office of Mediator well as Truce Comm are terminated.

We have fol recommendations:

1.
To Para 3 add fol new language: “Thanks the Truce Comm established by the SC res of 23 Apr., 1948 for its distinguished efforts in carrying out an arduous and dangerous task and declares this Comm dissolved.”
2.
Proposed para. 5 of draft res would be more explicit if it read as fols: “Requests the PCC to undertake the observance of the ceasefire in Palestine; upon the assumption by the PCC of this task the remaining functions of the UN Mediator on Palestine under SC resolutions, and the office of the Mediator, shall terminated.”
3.

Para. 6 might read: “Requests the SYG to appoint the present Chief of Staff of the Palestine Mediator to continue, under the supervision of the PCC, such of the present truce supervision organization as the PCC may require in maintaining the cease-fire, and as may be necessary in assisting the parties to the armistice agreements in the supervision of the application of the terms of those agreements.”

[Page 885]

Believe undesirable for supervisor armistice agreements have direct access to SC. There will undoubtedly be many allegations of breach of armistice which wld impose a needless and politically embarrassing task on SC of investigating charges which can only be checked by on-the-spot observation. We feel PCC is logical body to whom chief of staff shld report alleged breaches of armistice agreements and PCC wld then be free bring grave infractions attention SC.

4.
Feel also there shld be some laudatory reference in SC res to outstanding contribution Bernadotte and Bunche. Probably since latter drafted present proposed res this was omitted.2

Rptd USUN as 193.

Acheson
  1. Regarding these two telegrams, see footnote 1, p. 869.↩
  2. Jerusalem reported, on April 9, that the content of telegram 156 had been discussed with Mr. Bunche, who was “strongly of opinion, however, with which USDel agrees, that PCC should not become involved in armistice agreements.” Mr. Bunche was said to be of the opinion that the armistice agreements did not require PCC supervision, a matter he planned to discuss with Department officers on his return to the United States (telegram 280, also identified as Palun 121, 501.BB Palestine/4–949).↩