UNP Files: Lot 58 D 224
Memorandum of Conversation, by Philip A. Mangano, Adviser to the United States Delegation at the United Nations General Assembly
Subject: Memorandum on Meeting on Palestine Matters
| Participants: | Ambassador Palmer, US Representative on the PCC |
| Mr. Barco, Deputy US Representative on the PCC | |
| Mr. Macatee, US Member of Advisory Commission, Palestine Refugee Relief Agency | |
| Mr. Sandifer, US Delegation | |
| Mr. Stein, US Delegation | |
| Mr. Joseph Palmer, US Delegation | |
| Mr. Winslow, US Delegation | |
| Mr. Mangano, US Delegation | |
| Mr. Lewis Jones, Director—Near East Affairs, Department of State | |
| Mr. Crawford, House Foreign Affairs Committee Staff |
I. The meeting was called this afternoon to permit a full exchange between the US representatives on the two UN Palestine agencies and members of the Palestine working group in the US Delegation to the General Assembly. The basic problems considered were: (a) the question of consultation between responsible members of the US Delegation and General Riley on the subject of the additional political functions with which he would be invested according to the US position on the Palestine case after the presumed dissolution of the PCC; (b) the present status and prospects for completion of the PCC and Advisory Commission reports to the General Assembly, which reports are presumably to be considered together by the Ad Hoc Committee; (c) other questions relating to the proposed new distribution of functions as between the office of General Riley and the UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine).
II. Ambassador Palmer began by saying he had seen General Riley last evening, but did not feel free to go into details with him on the functions which the US would propose be entrusted to him by General Assembly action this year. Mr. Sandifer pointed out that it would be best if Ambassador Jessup would take these matters up directly with General Riley; alternatively, other representatives of the US Delegation could undertake these consultations. Ambassador Palmer and Mr. Barco then reviewed the course of PCC negotiations with the Arabs and the Israelis during the present PCC Conference, which is now about to close. They indicated a very wide divergence of approach between the Arabs and Israelis on almost all of the proposals which the PCC had made in its five-point program for progress toward a [Page 931] final possible settlement. They agreed that the PCC was clearly unable, with its terms of reference, to carry forward the work of negotiating and conciliation. Any new authority charged with such tasks would find it just as difficult unless given different terms of reference. Ambassador Palmer expected the PCC report could be completed sometime in the last week or ten days of November; he did not expect the PCC to adopt any recommendations, but felt that it might formulate conclusions based on its evaluation of the replies of the parties to the various PCC proposals. Ambassador Palmer and Mr. Barco felt that General Riley certainly should not be saddled with responsibility for the question of compensation or repatriation of Arab refugees, since this would only plague him as it had the PCC. They both felt that these functions should not, on the other hand, be turned over to the UNRWA, since Blandford was definitely opposed to that, and since responsibility for those questions would prejudice the UNRWA’s chances of successful activity in the resettlement and reintegration field.
III. Mr. Macatee then reported briefly on the status of the Advisory Commission report which the Department had felt to be inadequate and lacking in sufficient concrete data to justify the necessary fundraising campaign among the interested governments. He said that the Advisory Commission report is well advanced and that the prevailing opinion in his agency is that they cannot present much more concrete data at this time because of the reluctance of Arab governments to negotiate firm commitments. He said that the Arab governments are afraid of refugee opinion, particularly in Lebanon, and that they are approaching the UNRWA proposals with great caution. He made a strong plea not to have the Blandford office saddled with any of the political problems which had been faced by PCC.
IV. After these presentations, the meeting held a general discussion of the major points raised. They arrived at the following thoughts and considerations which had been pointed up by this exchange of views: (a) it would be necessary in the next day or two to have high-level consultations between the US Delegation and General Riley; similar consultations would probably be necessary with Mr. Blandford; (b) the touchy issues of compensation and repatriation (which had been handled hitherto by a special branch of PCC) should, if possible, be pigeonholed somewhere without requiring any of the authorities dealing with Palestine problems to engage in much activity in those fields. It was generally felt that more might possibly be done in the field of compensation than in the field of repatriation, since the Israelis had so clearly indicated that repatriation was out of the question for a long time; (c) thought might be given to asking the Interim Committee to have a sub-committee keep generally in touch with the problems of compensation and repatriation, without unduly emphasizing them; [Page 932] alternatively, some other means might be found of avoiding a complete passing over of these issues without, however, encouraging unduly active work on them under present conditions.
V. Mr. Lewis Jones (the State Department’s Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs), who is at present in Paris on other business, said that he had been asked by the Department to sound out French views on the future of PCC. He said he had not felt it appropriate to discuss the US position on this case with the French, but he had asked them for their views. They had told him they felt the continuance of PCC to be generally desirable. Commenting on the other points under discussion at the meeting, Mr. Jones felt that the political negotiation function could well be played down for some time, and that major support should be given to the very real and immediate problem of finding means of relieving the plight of the some 800,000 refugees in the Arab countries who, if not rehabilitated, would be a dangerous influence in the Middle East and a breeding ground for Communist influence.1
- Telegram Delga 122 from Paris, November 9, not printed, summarized much of this conversation and requested the Department’s instructions as to the manner and extent the Delegation to the General Assembly should consult with Riley and Blandford (320/11–951). In telegram Gadel 120 to Paris, November 10, the Department stated that the Delegation should advise Riley in confidence of the substance of the position paper of October 12 (p. 892) with regard to his proposed functions and advise him that these were the present views of the United States. The Department requested that it be indicated that these views had not yet been discussed with other delegations and that it was not deemed advisable to do so while the PCC Conference was going on. The Department further stated that Riley’s confidential reactions should be invited. (320/11–1051)↩