867N.01/7–1349
The Secretary of State to Francis Cardinal Spellman, Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York
My Dear Cardinal Spellman: The President has asked me to reply to your letter of July 13.1 I appreciate the further evidence of your interest in the Jerusalem question and your understanding of the delicacy of the problem with which the Conciliation Commission is dealing.
It is recalled that the President’s letter of June 222 stated that the United States Government firmly supports the principle of the internationalization of Jerusalem. It occurs to me that the subsequent remarks regarding the economic difficulties which would arise in implementing this principle may have given you the impression that only economic factors were involved.
Political factors are also of great importance. For example, it is necessary to consider such matters as the relationship between the peoples and institutions in the Jerusalem area and the adjacent states in order effectively to integrate the Jerusalem area into the political as well as the economic life of Palestine.
With regard to some of your economic points, it is recalled that the General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947, provided for the partition of Palestine with economic union. This resolution also provided that a certain proportion of the surplus revenue from the Customs and other common services should be utilized to supply income for the administration of the Jerusalem area. As you know, the General Assembly resolution of November 29 was implemented only to a very limited extent. As a result, neither the original plan for the internationalization of Jerusalem nor the provision regarding revenue for Jerusalem has become effective; consequently it is necessary for the Conciliation Commission, in devising a practical plan for the internationalization of the Jerusalem area, under the General Assembly resolution of December 11, to take these factors into consideration.
It may be recalled that the General Assembly resolution of December 11, 1948, provided that the Jerusalem area should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control, and that the Conciliation Commission was instructed to present detailed proposals for a permanent international regime to the Fourth session of the General Assembly in September 1949.
[Page 1294]It may be remembered in this connection that the American representative expressed the view in Committee I of the General Assembly on November 26, 1948, that “During the course of the coming year full consideration can be given to the difficult problems of the maintenance of law and order in Jerusalem and the cost of administration …3 It is our belief that the Jerusalem area should be integrated, in so far as is consistent with its special international character, with the people and institutions of the remainder of Palestine.”
There seems little doubt that the General Assembly, in framing its resolution of December 11, had in mind the various economic considerations to which you refer, and that it hoped that a practical plan could be worked out during the year subsequent to December 11, 1948.
With regard to the consequences of a recognition that the adjacent states have sovereignty over the respective Arab and Jewish portions of Jerusalem, you raise the question whether, such sovereignty being recognized, the adjacent states might not be able to invoke paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the United Nations Charter in order to deny the rights of the United Nations in the area.
I believe that your apprehensions on this point will be dispelled by the assurance that we have no intention of recognizing the sovereignty of any state in the Jerusalem area. The type of international regime which we have in mind would involve the distribution of governmental powers among the three authorities concerned, namely, the two adjacent states and the United Nations authority. It will not be an application of the concept of sovereignty in the usual sense, but will rather be a matter of a precise definition of the location of respective governmental powers. In the present case, where the only rights of the adjacent states in the area will be those defined in an agreement to which they are parties, they will clearly be in no position to deny the rights of the United Nations, which will be defined in the same agreement.
It is my understanding that the Palestine Conciliation Commission is still in the process of working out a practical plan for the internationalization of the Jerusalem area which will take into account the varied and complex problems which are involved. I regret that I am not in a position to supply you with a copy of this plan at this time as the Conciliation Commission has not yet submitted its report to the Secretary General of the United Nations. Meanwhile, a copy of your letter of July 13 and related correspondence are being forwarded to the United States representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission for his consideration in relation to the plan on which the Commission is working.
Sincerely yours,