Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

683.84A/6–1251: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Legation in Syria ¹

secret

Washington, June 15, 1951—7 p. m.

492. Re Legtels 723, 724, Jun 12² and London Embtel 6520 Jun 12,³ Dept believes Riley’s position technically sound for fol reasons:

Wording SC Res May 18 followed closely basic Armistice documents and official memos Chief of Staff UNTSO and Chairman MAC order, to avoid criticism SC attempting alter meaning these documents which, Dept believes, already adequately define and interpret auth Chairman MAC deal with any situation in Demil Zone under Art Five Armistice Agreement. Para 3 of SC Res combines wording from Para C Riley memo Mar 7 and from request Mar 10 by Chairman MAC to Israel del MAC “to insure that instructions are issued in order that Israel works on Arab owned lands in Demil Zone be stopped until action has been taken by the Syrian-Israel MAC.” In using language Riley memo, words “mutual” and “between Syria and Israel” were specifically omitted order not to tie hands of Chief of Staff or MAC Chairman.

Dept believes Syrians shld take into account this background re drafting of Res as well as Riley’s memo of Mar 7 in its entirety. Para A subpara d that memo states that neither party to Armistice Agreement enjoys rights of sovereignty within the Demil Zone, and concludes that expropriation by Pal Land Development Company Arab land in the Demil Zone without the consent of the owners is a violation of the Armistice Agreement. Believe Paras B, and C, represent views of Chief of Staff on basis premises established in Para A.

In interpreting Paras 3, 4, and 5 of SC Res on behalf of sponsors, UK rep stated in SC on May 18 that “we are conscious of duties of TSO to safeguard legitimate rights and interests of Arab land owners. The first objective of draft res is therefore to bring about the suspension of the drainage opns in the Demil Zone to enable Chief of Staff of TSO to use his good offices in effort to bring about and negotiate settlement between the owners of the affected land and the Pal Land Development Co.”

While agreeing that time between complete stoppage works in Zone and resumption work on Israel-owned land was extremely short, Dept believes on basis foregoing that Chairman Mac has auth authorize Pal Land Development Co. undertake opns on Israel-owned land within Demil Zone, provided he is satisfied land is in fact owned by Israelis and that such opns are resumed only with express permission Chairman of MAC.

You might point out to Syrian auths that principal purposes SC Res were to make clear Israel does not have unilateral right interpret Armistice Agreement and that Chairman and not Israel was responsible for supervision of administration of Demil Zone. Latter point considered of great importance by Syrians urdesp 457 Apr 23.⁴

Dept believes objectives of preceding para achieved and thus rights of UN have been upheld. Re other objectives of Res, Riley’s Jun 5 report to UN states these in process being carried out.

Dept agrees that present developments emphasize fact Armistice Agreement does not give Syrians any rights in area previously occupied by Syrian troops. We believe only way alter this situation is through Armistice revision machinery established for that purpose.⁵

Acheson

1. Telegram drafted by Mr. Waldo and cleared for UNP by Mr. Wainhouse. Transmission approved by Mr. Jones and repeated for information to Beirut, London, and Tel Aviv.

2. Neither printed. In the former, the Legation had stated in part: “We fully understand that Riley’s position with Israelis shld not be undermined … but do not know how to deal with dilemma whereby if Riley’s earlier position was based on misapprehension of facts … US may be maneuvered into safeguarding Riley–Israel relationship at expense US–Syrian relations.… We have often remarked Syrian fears extend beyond drainage problem to anxiety lest Israel is establishing its claim to whole demil zone. US position shld be designed to counteract this obsession.” (683.84A/6–1251)

   In telegram 724, the Legation had reported in part that the Foreign Office had protested “… vigorously against Riley’s action in giving permission Israelis resume drainage operations on lands allegedly Jewish owned in demilitarized zone.” (683.84A/6–1251)

3. In this telegram the Embassy had in part reported that the Foreign Office, in commenting on the Department’s views expressed in telegram 5771 to London, June 9 (p. 706) had inquired as to precisely why the Department held that Riley’s position (on the resumption of work on Jewish-owned lands in the Zone by the Palestine Land Development Co.) was technically sound. (683.84A/6–1251)
4. Not printed.
5. In telegram 6692 from London, June 20, the Embassy stated that the Foreign Office was grateful for the Department’s views as stated above. “Since conversation with Emb reported Embtel 6520 June 12, FonOff has given further study this question and has independently reached similar conclusions.” (683.84A/6–2051)