320/12–851: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Department of State 1
Delga 576. Re Gadel 361, Dec 6.2 Fol are Gen Riley’s comments on points raised Damascus 319, Dec 3:3
1. Riley agrees drainage project eminently worthwhile. He understands that project not undertaken prior 1948 because of hydroelectric company’s rights to waters to north and its opposition to carrying out project. Since 1948, of course, political conditions have not been favorable.
2. Riley agrees re importance issue. He points out Israel has expressed willingness discuss overall prob and in Aug submitted 4 point agenda to Syrian Govt thru MAC. Syria, however, turned suggested agenda down because unwillingness discuss resumption normal econ and trade relations, which was Israeli’s fourth point. Also in Syrian reply, statement made all other points cld be discussed in MAC. Riley thinks if Israeli wld agree to River Jordan line, Syrians wld not raise objection to project. Riley emphasizes, however, that project might well affect flow of Jordan which in turn might affect use of Jordan River south of Lake Tiberius. Therefore considers Jordanian agreement to any change in flow of Jordan essential. Aside from Jordanian angle, however, crux of matter is that Israelis desire comprehensive agreements that wld be basis on which peaceful settlement cld be reached. Syrians not willing go this far.
3. Riley agrees and adds that if Israelis obtain Al-Hummeh salient, it wld give them control of mouth Yarmuk and provide them with means damming river to detriment Syria. Riley points out, however, source of Yarmuk is in Syria which cld, presumably, take retaliatory measures.
[Page 959]4. Riley says he has consistently advocated water line since Mar 1949 and had discussed matter with number of Israeli leaders before recent discussions took place between Syria and Israel. Difficulty now is that Syria desires only a change in boundary while Israel wants a wider settlement. Syrian dissatisfaction present line is that it derives from 1923 treaty between UK and French as mandatory powers, about which, Syria points out, they had nothing to say, sole intent of line was to give Brit mandate control of Jordan River and Lakes Tiberias and Huleh. Riley feels 1923 definition that boundary shall run 10 meters from waters edge vicinity of Tiberias is unrealistic and that Syrian opposition understandable on practical grounds.
5. Riley agrees with Clark’s comments re Jaddid in this and antepenult paras. He confirms Jaddid close to Shishikli but does not always reflect govt views, due political complications. Riley particularly underlines importance Jaddid’s observations re strategic position Syria and Leb occupy with respect Jordan River; as source of Jordan is in Leb and sources of tributaries in Syria.
6. Riley says he is not sure there is convincing evidence of Israeli fortifications in zone contrary armistice agreement. He concedes there may be ditches, etc but says Syrians equally have built such installations. He adds, most flagrant violation of armistice agreements is roadblock vicinity El-Hummeh in DZ which was erected after Israeli police approached El-Hummeh in Apr this year. When tension within zone removed chairman will request road block be removed.
7. Riley points out difficulty of proving or disproving statements such as those made by 2 Arabs with whom Clark talked. He says he has received similar statements, but also has statements from other Arabs to effect they have not been maltreated.
8. Riley prefers not comment.