Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI

890.00/10–749

Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (McGhee) to the Under Secretary of State (Webb)¹

top secret

[Washington,] October 7, 1949.

Subject: Proposed Plan for Development and Coordination of U.S. Near East Policies and Coordination with the U.K.

Discussion:

At the present time the US and UK and to a lesser extent certain other powers face separately and together a number of specific problems in the Near East. Important military, economic and political developments are taking place which necessitate careful and continuous study and a high degree of coordination not only between the Department and its representatives in the Near East, but between the US and the UK.

Most important problems are:

1. Activities of the Economic Survey Mission: A preliminary report will be submitted by the Mission to the UN through the PCC about November 10.² Largely because of the importance which the US attaches to this Mission, it is proposed to arrange a meeting of American Chiefs of Mission in the Near East for the purpose, among others, of discussing the preliminary Clapp report, of advising Clapp with respect to his longer-range report scheduled for completion about the first of the year, and of determining how most effectively to support the carrying out of Clapp’s recommendations. The meeting should be held shortly after the submission of the preliminary Clapp report. The Chiefs of Mission, whose views have been requested, are in general agreement as to desirability of this meeting. (See telegrams attached.)³

2. Joint US–UK Strategic Planning: It is understood that the US and UK military establishments have been working on combined strategic military plans for the Near East for the past year and a half under the direction of Admiral Conolly,⁴ and that specific plans have been developed. It is also understood that during a recent conference in London of British Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions from the Near East each Chief of Mission was briefed as to how his country would be affected if it should be necessary to implement the joint US–UK strategic military plans. It is believed that appropriate Department officials and chiefs of Mission should be similarly informed, and that advantage might be taken of the meeting proposed in 1. for this purpose.

3. Proposed Iraqi-Syrian Plan of Union:⁵ The British Embassy informed the Department during the past week, confirming reports received from U.S. Missions, of plans which the governments of Iraq and Syria are developing for a union of their two countries. These plans may have widespread internal and external repercussions in the Near East. The United States is presently studying these plans for the purpose of crystallizing its views. Unless solution has been reached this would also be a suitable topic for discussion at the proposed meeting.

No high level consultations have been held with the UK on Near East questions since the meetings October 16 to November 7, 1947.⁶ There was discussion that Mr. Michael Wright, Chief of the Middle East Section of the Foreign Office, might come to the U.S. in the summer, but nothing materialized.⁷ Mr. Bevin⁸ did not bring a Near East expert on his recent visit. It is considered desirable to bring the 1947 talks up to date, and to exchange views on the problems enumerated and other current problems, in order to coordinate US–UK policies in the Near East and as a background for the proposed meeting of the U.S. Chiefs of Mission.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that you approve the following course of action:

1. A meeting be held of the American Chiefs of Mission in the Arab countries and Israel on or about November 22 on board a suitable US Naval vessel available in the area, with Admiral Conolly, myself and possibly other Departmental officers attending. The vessel be boarded at Cyprus and not at any Arab or Israeli port. Admiral Conolly advises that arrangements for the vessel are possible; if not the meeting be held at Cyprus.

2. Admiral Conolly be authorized to inform the American Chiefs of Mission and Departmental officers present of the impact on their countries of the US–UK strategic military plans for the Near East.

3. Following the meeting of the American Chiefs of Mission, Admiral Conolly be authorized to proceed, with as little publicity as possible, to Athens and Ankara for the purpose of informing Mr. Grady and Mr. Wads worth,⁹ respectively, regarding US–UK strategic military plans for their areas.

4. Following submission of Clapp’s report about November 10, and before the Chiefs of Mission meeting, Mr. Michael Wright be requested to visit Washington for consultation.¹⁰

[Here follow concurrences.]

1. Addressed also to Dean Rusk, Deputy Under Secretary of State.
2. For information on this report, see editorial note, p. 1472.
3. Not found attached.
4. Rear Adm. Richard L. Conolly, Commander in Chief of U.S. Naval Forces in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. For further documentation on combined strategic military plans for the Near East, see pp. 186 ff.
5. For documentation on this subject, see pp. 180 ff.
6. For documentation on these meetings, see Foreign Relations, 1947, vol. v, pp. 485 ff.
7. For documentation on the talks of Mr. Wright with officials of the Department of State, which took place in November 1949, see pp. 54–90.
8. Ernest Bevin, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
9. Henry F. Grady and George Wadsworth, Ambassadors in Greece and Turkey, respectively.
10. In an attached memorandum of October 11 to the Secretary, Mr. Rusk stated: “I approve of the recommendations listed in the attached paper with the exception that I do not believe that Admiral Conolly should brief our Ambassadors in the Near East on our strategic planning unless and until you and the Under Secretary as a minimum have been carefully briefed on such plans here.

    “I suggest that you approve only the first recommendation of this paper. We will attempt to work out the problem of briefing on strategic military plans. If we are not able to reach a satisfactory solution of this problem before the scheduled date of the meeting of the Chiefs of Mission, the meeting can profitably be held even though Admiral Conolly does not brief the Ambassadors on the strategic plans of the area.”

    In another attached memorandum of October 13, Mr. Rusk informed Mr. Mc-Ghee that “The Secretary has approved your desire to have a meeting of American Chiefs of Mission in Arab countries [and] in Israel in the latter part of November in Cyprus or, alternatively, Turkey. The other matters in the attached memorandum can be handled by you.”

    Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 in Mr. McGhee’s memorandum bear marginal notations by Mr. Rusk, each stating “not yet”.