Office of the Historian

683.84A/4–1251: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Department of State

confidential
London, April 12, 1951—7 p. m.

5410. Re Deptcirtel 612, April 10, 7 p. m.1

Asst head eastern San [Eastern Department?]2 expressed FonOff view that Israel Borderment apparently on Syrian side border as well as in demilitarized zone seemed lift recent Syro-Israeli disputes out of category mere frontier incident, or at least threatened do so. FonOff considered that in expressing UK views and concern to both parties (along lines similar Dept’s) and in consultating with US and French it was in fact acting consistently with its obligations under tripartite declaration and so gave to understand Syrian and Israeli dipl reps here. FonOff agrees that it preferable withhold any appearance of calling tripartite declaration into formal operation for more serious sitn but since action to be taken under declaration not defined, sees no reason why we cannot say we have already acted according its spirit. [Page 635] FonOff also agrees present dispute shld be handled by existing UN machinery.3

Gifford
  1. Ante, p. 629.↩
  2. In 1951 the Assistant Head of the Eastern Department of the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office for the region including Israel and Syria was J. C. Wardrop.↩

  3. In telegram 6160 from Paris, April 12, the Embassy reported on its conversation with a Foreign Office official with regard to French representations made to Israel and Syria concerning the Huleh conflict. The Embassy stated in part:

    “Luc pointed out that FonOff, while mentioning tripartite declaration as explanation of their demarches, had carefully avoided stating they were taking action thereunder. He agrees that any action under tripartite declaration shld be reserved for graver events than present frontier incidents, which shld be handled by existing UN machinery.” (683.84A/4–1251)

    ↩