Sir:

I have the honour to inform you that consideration is now being given to the policy which the Canadian Delegate to the United Nations should follow in regard to the question of Palestine when this subject is discussed in the Security Council. In this regard it is of particular importance that we should have some idea concerning the attitude of the United States Government towards this question. I would be grateful, therefore, if you would approach the United States Government with a request for information concerning the United States policy in regard to Palestine.

2. It would be appropriate for you to point out to United States officials that the Canadian Delegate to the United Nations will be President of the Security Council during the month of February. It is altogether likely that the Palestine Commission will report to the Security Council during the period within which General McNaughton is President, and he will therefore have responsibility of particular importance in relation to this question.

3. You may wish also to remind the United States Government that, during the discussions of the Palestine question in the second session of the General Assembly, the Canadian Delegation gave its support to the plan for partition with economic union only on the understanding that the permanent members of the Security Council would take whatever action might be required for putting that plan into effect. This subject was discussed privately on frequent occasions by members of the Delegation with members of the United States Delegation. It was the view of the Canadian Delegation that the responsibility of the Great Powers should be made explicit through a reference in the Resolution of the Assembly to the authority of the Security Council to deal with situations and disputes. The United States Delegation objected to the proposals of the Canadian Delegation in this regard on the ground that a specific reference to the Security Council would in effect constitute a threat against the Arab states. It would be a mistake in tactics, they said, to adopt a formula which made explicit the expectation that the Arab states would resist the settlement and that force would have to be applied to make them accept it. In bosh public and private, members of the United States Delegation stated that it should be taken for granted that the Arab states would accept a decision of the General Assembly, and confidentially they intimated that they were prepared themselves to take action directly with the Arab states to secure their acquiescence. Before the close of the debate, however, it became evident that many states shared the misgivings of the Canadian Delegation concerning the means by which effect would be given to the Palestine proposals. In consequence, the United States Delegation finally agreed to an amendment to the Palestine resolution by which responsibility was placed on the Security Council in the event of disturbances in Palestine which would make it impossible for the Palestine Commission to carry out its mandate. At the same time, the United States delegate, Mr. Herschel Johnson, said in a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, that in the event of an appeal to the Security Council, the United States could be counted upon to fulfil its responsibilities as a member of that body.

4. It is now evident that the Arab states are determined to resist by force the plan for the partition of Palestine, and it is doubtful if the Jewish community in Pales tine will be able to establish and maintain the Jewish state in Palestine unless it receives armed support from the Members of the U.N. during the year 1948. It may also be that some continuing armed support from the Members of the U.N. will be necessary for some years to come to prevent attacks on the Jewish state. In these circumstances, it is most important that the United States should indicate to other states which generally supported their position during the discussions on Palestine at the General Assembly what concrete policy they propose to adopt or what specific proposals they will suggest when the Palestine question comes before the Security Council.

5. In making those inquiries, it would be in order for you to ask for a clear indication of the policy of the United States Government in regard to methods by which the proposed settlement ill Palestine should be imposed and maintained. If the United States should indicate that it is thinking in terms of an international force made up of national contingents solely from the secondary states, you can suggest that the Canadian Government would not regard this as satisfactory nor in accord with the declaration of the United States representative (cited at the end of paragraph 3 above) that in the event of an appeal to the Security Council the United States could be counted upon to fulfil its responsibilities as a member of that body.

6. It would also be in order for you to go further in your discussions with the United States authorities and indicate quite clearly that, in the absence of a clear indication of a constructive and consistent policy on the part of the United States Government in regard to the Palestine question, that Government should not expect the Canadian Delegation to the Security Council to take any initiative in the discussion of that question or to concur in proposals on the part of the United States Delegation which do not have the degree of firmness and practicability which the Canadian Delegation to the General Assembly was led to expect from its discussions with the United States Delegation at that time.

I have etc.,
L.B. PEARSON