478. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State1

1521. Dept pass Cairo. Middle East.

Following further preliminary consultations between Hope (UK) and Pedersen, Caradon (UK) called on Goldberg for further ME discussion this morning. Discussion was most fruitful one we have had in two weeks, and we believe we have gotten over, for moment at least, main difficulties between two delegations.

Caradon said SC Pres was calling on him today following meeting of non-perm members, and he understood he had called on us last night. Goldberg said this was correct and we had authorized him to report to SC members we were not in agreement with USSR but did not [Page 915] wish to discuss details, that we concurred in effort on non-perm members to seek new approach, and that we thought consultation with parties was important.

Caradon said he thought it was very important US and UK not speak with different voices to non-perm members. Caradon said he planned to make similar points, i.e. approval of non-perm members efforts, importance of consultations with parties, desirability of producing an early draft, and interest in general and balanced statement of principles followed by appointment of special rep. GoldbeRG said this was quite satisfactory.

Caradon said he wished to raise important question on content of res. UK had always assumed res must include provision for withdrawal. In recent conversations with him Goldberg had used different formulations of possible language covering this point. Caradon said he had raised questions about our formulations but now he understood Goldberg had talked to FonMin Riad (UAR)2 in framework which did not refer to withdrawal at all. He had been very worried about this yesterday, as we knew.

Goldberg replied that on this matter we thought it was very important not to be more Catholic than the Pope. Every effort to produce agreement in past had floundered over relationship between wording of withdrawal and of non-belligerence. It was now our impression that Arabs were stressing more strongly terminology referring to territorial integrity and political independence. We had previously conveyed this reaction to him after conversation with Riad, and subsequent info, including conversation with Rifai (Jordan), tended to confirm this. Goldberg said we could of course not be sure until people began to look at actual texts. Caradon said he would be extremely surprised if this proved to be correct but indicated he had no objection to possibility being explored.

Goldberg then told Caradon that in light of our various conversations we had in fact gone ahead to complete a new draft. This was not to be a US draft, and if it began to appear in such fashion we would disown it. Told Caradon we had given this text (USUN 1504)3 in both short and long form to LAs, Canada, and Denmark yesterday morning for their guidance in meetings of non-perm members.

Goldberg observed that consensus in that group had been that best approach was to start with shorter version, i.e. without para containing language on withdrawal and non-belligerence and then see what developed.

[Page 916]

Caradon expressed appreciation for receipt of texts, said he would respect our confidence, and reiterated agreement to continuing on course outlined.

Comment: There is still difference of assessment of chances of progress along lines we have outlined. There also continues to be difference of opinion between US and UK which could re-appear at subsequent stage, on proper balance of wording between withdrawal and non-belligerence. However for moment we are operating in coordinated tactical fashion.

  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, POL 27 ARAB–ISR/UN. Secret; Exdis. Repeated to London and Tel Aviv. Received at 2323Z.
  2. See Document 474.
  3. Telegram 1504 from USUN, October 18. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, POL 27 ARAB–ISR/UN)