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

1671. Dept pass Cairo. Re: Middle East.

At his request, Rifai (Jordan) called on Goldberg Oct 23 to review current situation regarding consultations on possible SC res on ME. Rifai said some non-perms have formulated group of principles as basis [Page 939] for res. As Arabs pressed for time “before we come again to GA”, Rifai had called to discover US views.
Goldberg reaffirmed basic US postulate that ME question should not be settled between US and USSR, but rather principally by parties themselves. Goldberg said US certainly supports non-perms taking initiative and that, in reply to their question, he had told UAR FonMin and SC pres this. US not [now] awaiting results of non-perm effort.
Rifai said consultations have moved past stage of US–USSR discussions, because Arabs now in direct contact with US which “shortens distance and brings us closer to positive results”. Rifai then referred to several initiatives for res of which he aware: (1) US–USSR draft of July; (2) a res linking withdrawal and non-belligerency and sending UN rep to area (with other matters such as free navigation and refugees to be taken up subsequently); and (3) current Indian draft which incorporates “larger group of principals”. Rifai identified (2) as a text shown Jordanians by Caradon (UK) and asked if US had ever seen this text. Goldberg said we had seen no such text and that Caradon had told us he had no text. Rifai said Caradon text was balanced and he (Rifai) did not know why it had not further materialized. (Pedersen subsequently raised question of this text with Hope (UK), indicating Rifai had asked Goldberg about this text and we were in embarrassing position of having to say we had not seen it. Hope said he sure UK had not shown Jordanians any such text; that Rifai must be talking about correct (as opposed to unilaterally modified by USSR) US–USSR text of July. Hope agreed check matter with Caradon and let us know.)
Re Indian text, Rifai said he thought it “could in a way be considered as general and as specific at same time”. He said it contains larger group of principles enunciated by various dels, including those contained in Goldberg’s General debate speech, and should provide some sort of basis for further SC considerations.
Goldberg said we had heard of Indian text but since Indians have not given it to us, we don’t know exactly what it entails and therefore cannot comment on it.2
Rifai further pursed question of grouped principles. Goldberg said his guidelines remained President’s June 19 statement. Rifai noted President’s statement included “withdrawal of troops” and that withdrawal “[Page 940]primary” among principles for GOJ. Goldberg said withdrawal obviously tied into Charter principle of territorial integrity and that territorial integrity and non-belligerence were parallel concepts tied into the principle of renunciation of force. Rifai said Jordanians would like withdrawal to be “given prominence”, adding he “doubted” it could be covered by territorial integrity. (He said this however in such a way as to indicate that, while Jordanians would not be happy about it, withdrawal might be covered by concept of territorial integrity. Also notable that Rifai at no point mentioned June 5 date, but did refer to need for recognized boundaries.)
Rifai said he thought Indians and non-perms should conclude their discussions on a possible text today or early tomorrow with some positive results. Goldberg reiterated our support for the non-perm effort and our feeling that they ought to get on with the job rather than dealing with collateral questions, particularly in light of events in area over weekend. Rifai agreed as to seriousness of weekend developments which he said might lead to a series of events which could get out of control. Rifai and Goldberg agreed this new factor increased urgency of early moves for res in SC and toward ME settlement.
  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, POL 27 ARAB–ISR. Secret. Repeated to Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Ottawa, Copenhagen, New Delhi, Tokyo, London, Moscow, Paris, Amman, Beirut, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Lagos, and Addis Ababa and passed to Cairo.
  2. Telegram 1702 from USUN, October 25, reported that Goldberg had asked Indian representative G. Parthasarathi on October 24 about the Indian draft. Parthasarathi told him there was no such thing as an Indian draft, but “only a working paper which is being discussed in a group of six non-perm members.” The telegram commented, “We are convinced and he did not deny that he has put forward Indian draft for discussion with non-perms only after full consultations with Arabs and Sovs and without any attempt to get our views.” (Ibid., POL 27 ARAB–ISR/UN)