231. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission at the United Nations 1
483. On November 23 Ethiopian Ambassador Deressa called at Department with reference to upcoming UNGA discussion Ethiopian-Somali boundary. Deressa stated his Government favors compromise settlement this problem involving acceptance existing provisional border as permanent frontier. IEG confident strength its legal position, but willing to accept provisional line in interest of achieving rapid settlement. If compromise settlement not possible, IEG, as previously indicated, wishes submit interpretation 1908 boundary convention to arbitration. Ambassador said he instructed ascertain whether we would speak to Itals in favor Ethiopian Ital agreement on this compromise and enquired re possibility having [Page 622] friendly countries sponsor Resolution recommending this solution. Department agreed to transmit its reply to him in New York.
Request you inform Deressa we have given careful consideration IEG views; fundamentally, US position is to favor early settlement boundary problem on basis mutually agreeable to parties directly concerned. We recognize that compromise envisaged by IEG would make possible quick solution if accepted by Italians and Somalis. However, since issue before GA is determination of procedure to settle differences in interpretation existing agreement defining boundary, resolution attempting to impose specific settlement appears to be outside GA competence. We not certain such a resolution would receive widespread support and foresee, even if Somalis were now to consent, possibility of future Somali protest this settlement imposed upon them in violation their legal claims. Believe, therefore, arbitration is more appropriate method of reaching settlement and hesitate to recommend to other delegations compromise solution which we feel may give rise to serious difficulties. We are, however, willing to mention to the Italian delegation the proposed compromise. In the event agreement on this solution does not appear possible, we hope Ethiopian and Italian Delegations can agree upon a resolution favoring arbitration and would be willing to render such assistance as may be deemed desirable in this connection. If all the parties concerned are agreeable, we would be glad to sponsor a resolution acceptable to them all recommending a procedure of arbitration.2
In playing intermediary role re Somali frontier question USDel should seek retain flexibility this stage as regards terms of possible arbitration resolution. In view Ethiopian sensitivity on subject USDel should consult with IEG Del soonest to ascertain its ideas re acceptable resolution. USDel should continue carefully to avoid identification with any draft resolution until assured it is in form acceptable to all parties. In this connection we doubt appropriateness suggesting to Ethiopians resolution containing recommendations re negotiation [Page 623] water and grazing rights which do not bear directly upon settlement frontier.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 675.773/12–357. Confidential. Repeated by pouch to Addis Ababa, Rome, and Mogadiscio. Drafted by Dorros and cleared by Bovey.↩
- In Delga 538 from USUN, December 4, Ambassador Lodge reported that Deressa informed the British that only the 1908 Convention should be the subject of arbitration and not any references to grazing rights or the peace, order, and welfare of the population. (Ibid., 675.773/12–457) These same points were reiterated by Deressa to Lodge on December 5, when he stated his nation’s opposition to the interjection of political considerations into a juridical matter. The Italians informed the British on the same date that whereas the Somalis might be persuaded not to insist on references to grazing rights and border crossings they were adamant that the arbitration tribunal not confine itself to the 1908 Convention and that it consider the peace, order, and welfare of the population involved. (Delga 548 from USUN, December 5; ibid., 675.773/12–557)↩