357.AC/9–2951: Telegram
The Chargé in Syria (Clark) to the Department of State 1
157. In two-hour conversation with FonMin Sept 22 Atasi expressed to me desire to cooperate with US, saying only Israel question stood in way. He spoke earnestly of Syrian Govt and people’s overriding fear of Israel, emphasizing steady inflow immigration and US funds. I replied along usual lines urging reliance on tripartite declaration, Israel pacific intentions and UN guarantees against aggression.
He asked me call again today appearing greatly distressed re PCC proposals in Paris. He said reports from Paris and Syrian diplomatic reps elsewhere indicate US is trying “force” Arabs make peace settlement with Israel. Re-emphasizing Syria has ho aggressive intentions, he said PCC proposals seem directed toward enlisting Arab cooperation to provide Israel with means of economic support (Legtel 138, Sept 16).2 He declared this was too much to ask of Arabs who had sovereign right take measures they regard essential their own safety.
He said some Arab leaders had recommended against accepting PCC invitation but he and others had prevailed on Arab League accept in order show Arabs continued hope for redress by UN of past grievances. He deplored Chairman’s opening statement which he said implied Arabs had to make concessions Israel in order gain even its partial compliance with past resolutions. These were not proper subjects for negotiation but for enforcement by UN. In fact all that needs be done is for UN, and particularly US, require Israel comply with past GA and SC resolutions and objectives PCC will be realized.
He placed blame for noncompliance on US tolerance Israel illegal actions and continued US economic support. He and every other Arab are convinced all US has to do is to threaten cut off its aid and Israel will comply. He cited as example US attitude reports he had received that French had proposed division Syria–Israel demilitarized zone along waterline and UK concurred but US reaction was “negative” one to refer question to PCC, implying US support Israel’s refusal this proposal. He urged change in US policy toward Israel bring about compliance UN resolutions, citing them one by one.
[Page 883]I countered each point stressing urgent need for Arab delegations Paris abandon negative attitude and show constructive approach. I said whole world believed it wld be to best common interest for Arabs make peace with Israel but denied any attempt being made “force” general peace settlement on them. Surely each and every PCC proposal merited close consideration by Arabs and Israel and any progress achieved wld be a forward step. I suggested the acting Syrian delegate (Min Adnan Atasi is still vacationing in Syria) consult with Amb Palmer in order clear up misapprehension under which Syrians seem to be laboring.
Atasi said he will probably depart Sept 29 for Arab League mtg Alexandria and I obtained his assurance he wld try work against wholesale rejection PCC approach or withdrawal from Paris conference. I am convinced he has sincere desire improve relations with US but it is obvious he is very worried about Syrian popular and parliamentary reaction to PCC proposals. He declared there is basic conflict in US policy which tries enlist Arab cooperation in defense against USSR while ignoring threat Arabs see in an aggressive Israel harboring designs on controlling a domain “from the Nile to the Euphrates”. For US to consider Israel as a partner with area countries in defense of Middle East is “like trying mix fire and water”. He strongly emphasized Syria is part of free world and has nothing in common with USSR which it abhors. However, only by removing Arab fears of Israel through effective measures can US enlist support Arab Govts and peoples.
Wld appreciate Dept’s comments and suggest renewed talks with Syrian Min Washington.
- Repeated for information to Ambassador Palmer at Paris and to Tel Aviv, Cairo, Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Jidda, Jerusalem, London, and Ankara.↩
- Not printed; it stated that the Legation in Syria had grave misgivings as to the inclusion of paragraph 5(g) in the PCC proposals (see Palun 440, September 12, p. 856). In the Legation’s opinion, open reference to economic cooperation and the resumption of trade relations was premature in the present atmosphere and unnecessary in that if the other proposals were accepted, trade might follow. If the paragraph were included, the Legation feared it would be seized upon by all its opponents as a “trick clause” favoring Israel and represented as the real reason for which the Arabs were invited to Paris. (357.AC/9–1651)↩