684A.85/7–551: Telegram
The Minister in Jordan (Drew) to the Department of State 1
7. Re Deptel 187 June 29 [28].2 In conv with Jordan PriMin July 2, he expressed opinion that neither PCC nor TSO competent to take cognizance of alleged Israeli diversion of waters of Jordan River. If SC unwilling consider Jordan complaint he proposes have recourse to Internatl Court of Justice and is already in consultation with legal experts in London. While PriMin was restrained in conv, he left no doubt of grave view he takes of sit.
Regarding alternative courses suggested by Dept to Jordan Min, while conceivable PCC might take cognizance of complaint at request of both parties, it is hardly likely that Israel wld take such action.
Neither can I understand how terms of arms agreement wld give competence over Jordan complaint to either special comite or TSO. Terms of reference of special comite are specified in agreement and to classify an alleged violation of internatl riparian rights as a “warlike act or act of hostility” under Art 3 wld appear to require a considerable broadening of the apparent intent of the Jordan-Israeli arms [armistice] agreement.
[Page 746]If the foregoing conclusions are correct and Dept further holds that UN SC could not act, I see no other recourse than the Internatl Court. While I agree with Dept that problems of this nature point up importance of settlement between Jordan and Israel, it wld in my opinion be lamentable denial of efficacy of machinery established by UN charter to hold that Jordan’s only recourse against flagrant violation of its internatl rights wld be to undertake peace negots while Israel is holding knife at her throat. On contrary, I believe that acceptance of jurisdiction of Internatl Court, by both parties and compliance with its decision wld constitute the proper and logical foundation on which to build hopes of a peace settlement between them.