219. UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL "TO MAKE AP. PROPRIATE REPARATION" TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ARGENTINA: Resolution Adopted by the U.N. Security Council, June 23, 19607 The Security Council, Having examined the complaint that the transfer of Adolf Eichmann to the territory of Israel constitutes a violation of the sovereignty of the Argentine Republic, Considering that the violation of the sovereignty of a Member State is incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, Having regard to the fact that reciprocal respect for and the mutual protection of the sovereign rights of States are an essential condition for their harmonious coexistence, Noting that the repetition of acts such as that giving rise to this situation would involve a breach of the principles upon which international order is founded creating an atmosphere of insecurity and distrust incompatible with the preservation of peace, Mindful of the universal condemnation of the persecution of the Jews under the Nazis, and of the concern of people in all countries that Eichmann should be brought to appropriate justice for the crimes of which he is accused, Noting at the same time that this resolution should in no way be interpreted as condoning the odious crimes of which Eichmann is accused, 1. Declares that acts such as that under consideration, which affect the sovereignty of a Member State and therefore cause international friction, may, if repeated, endanger international peace and security; 2. Requests the Government of Israel to make appropriate reparation in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of international law; 8 3. Expresses the hope that the traditionally friendly relations between Argentina and Israel will be advanced. 'U.N. doc. S/4349 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, July 18, 1960, pp. 116-117). The resolution, sponsored by the representative of Argentina, was adopted by a vote of 8 (including the U.S.) to 0, with 2 abstentions. The representative of Argentina did not participate in the vote. The U.S. representative gave the following interpretation of operative par. 2 of the resolution at the June 23 meeting of the Security Council: "The United States considers that 'adequate reparation' will have been made by the expression of views by the Security Council in the pending resolution taken together with the statement of the Foreign Minister of Israel making apology on behalf of the Government of Israel. We therefore think that when we have adopted the pending resolution 'adequate reparation' will have been made and that the incident will then be closed." (Ibid., p. 116.) ["ISRAEL HAS NO INTENTION OF PRODUCING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND ... ITS PROGRAM IS CONCERNED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE PEACEFUL USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY": Statement Issued by the Department of State, December 19, 1960-Post, doc. 374] THE PUSHTUNISTAN QUESTION 220. SOVIET ENDORSEMENT OF THE "PUSHTUNISTAN❞ MOVEMENT: Address by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. (Khrushchev) Before a Mass Meeting of Moscow Working People, The Sports Palace, Moscow, March 6, 1960 (Excerpt) 1 1 Pushtunistan represents an unresolved problem that disturbs Afghanistan, Historically, as you know, Pushtunistan has always been part of Afghanistan. After establishing hegemony over India, Great Britain, expanding her colonial empire, began to penetrate the lands of the Afghans, foisting on Afghanistan a number of shackling treaties and agreements and seeking to subjugate the Pushtus and to seize all of Afghanistan. But the Afghan people offered the colonialists stubborn resistance, which eventually took the form of a general struggle for independence. The colonialists' army was defeated and driven out, and Afghanistan won her national independence. The Soviet Union was first to recognize the Afghan state and to establish diplomatic relations with it. Those Pushtus who found themselves outside independent Afghanistan, on territory that remained under the control of the British authorities, also offered the colonialists stubborn resistance at every turn. With the collapse of the colonial system in India, the colonialists, true to their policy of "divide and rule", split the country up into two states-India and Pakistan. Millions of Pushtus found themselves within the borders of the state of Pakistan. Afghanistan has not recognized and does not recognize this situation to be just. It demands that Pushtunistan be given the right of self-determination under conditions of freedom and nonintervention. However, the national rights of the Pushtus and the legitimate demands of Afghanistan have not been considered. Thus it is that for many years now this issue has gone unresolved, straining relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. What stand do we take on this issue? Our stand derives from the Leninist national policy, which proclaims that every people has the right to self-determination, that national questions should be settled in accordance with the will of the peoples. Afghanistan demands that the Pushtu people be given an opportunity through a referendum, a plebiscite held under free conditions, to evidence their will and to decide whether they wish to remain within the borders of Pakistan, to form a new independent state or to reunite with Afghanistan. We consider this demand proper. This demand is entirely legitimate; it is consistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter. Our sympathies in this matter lie with the Pushtu 1 This excerpt is taken from pp. 6-7 of The Current Digest of the Soviet Press, vol. XII, No. 10, Apr. 6, 1960. For the reaction of the members of CENTO to this statement, see ante, doc. 209. people, with Afghanistan. We are confident that common sense will sooner or later prevail and that this dispute, which now occasions distress, will be resolved peacefully in the interest of the Pushtu people and in the interest of peace. THE QUESTION OF FREEDOM OF TRANSIT 221. UNITED STATES POLICY RESPECTING MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO SECURE COMPLETE FREEDOM OF TRANSIT IN THE SUEZ CANAL: Reply Made by the Secretary of State (Herter) to a Question Asked at a News Conference, February 8, 19601 In my statement before the United Nations this fall 2 I made a pretty strong statement with regard to our own policy on freedom of transit in the Suez Canal. When this specific incident and subsequent incidents arose, the Secretary-General of the United Nations undertook to try to adjust this matter as between Israel and Egypt. His efforts are still continuing. As of now, they do not appear to have been too successful. But how they will turn out, I cannot say at this time. He may still succeed in working out a modus vivendi which will take care of that problem. Until we know the degree of success or failure which he has achieved, I feel that working through that channel, to which we have given full support, is the best way of handling the matter. 222. VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ON THE "DOUGLAS AMENDMENT” TO THE MUTUAL SECURITY ACT "DESIGNED TO SUPPORT EFFORTS TOWARD ELIMINATING TRADE RESTRICTIONS PRACTICED AGAINST THE STATE OF ISRAEL": Letter From the Acting Secretary of State (Dillon) to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Fulbright), May 2, 1960 3 3 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your request for the views of the Department of State with respect to the implications of the Douglas Amendment to the Mutual Security bill, I take this opportunity to set forth the following pertinent observations. 'The reply printed here is taken from p. 321 of the Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 29, 1960 (reprint of Department of State press release No. 53). Mr. Herter made similar replies to questions asked at his Mar. 25, 1960, news conference; see ibid., Apr. 11, 1960, pp. 551 and 552. 2 Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1959, pp. 93–105. * Department of State Bulletin, May 23, 1960, pp. 832-834. Docs. 221, 222 As we understand the intent of its 18 sponsors, the Douglas Amendment is designed to support efforts toward eliminating trade restrictions in the Middle East, particularly with respect to those practiced against the State of Israel. I am sure you are aware that this purpose is fully consistent with long-standing objectives of the United States Government. It is our conviction however, that the inclusion of this Amendment in current Mutual Security legislation will in fact be counter-productive and will not achieve its intended purpose. In addition, such inclusion will in our view have harmful repercussions on United States interests in a wide area of the Middle East. As you know, a resolution similar to the Douglas Amendment was passed in the House of Representatives at an earlier date. Fully sympathetic with the objective intended, the Department made the text available to our Embassies and Consulates in countries which would be affected by the amendment. In a unanimous expression of opinion our field posts from Morocco to Iraq reported that the adoption of an amendment of this type would clearly not be in the interest of the United States, nor for that matter of Israel. Our posts abroad emphasized their concurrence with the objective sought by this amendment. They also stressed, however, that regardless of the effect which the amendment might have on the actual level of our assistance to the Middle Eastern states, the amendment would be widely interpreted as: a) demonstrating favoritism for the State of Israel-to the extent that it would render more difficult our efforts to bring about a relaxation of tensions between Israel and the Arab states; and b) an attempt to "tie strings" to our economic aid, and, by implication, to threaten the use of aid as an instrument of political coercion. Our posts pointed out, and the Department of State fully concurs, that incorporation of this amendment would without doubt have the effect of making the task of eliminating the Arab boycott of Israel more difficult and would play into the hands of the Soviet bloc which seeks to exacerbate Middle East tensions to further its penetration of the area. Our Government has repeatedly made clear, publicly and through diplomatic channels, its support for freedom of transit through the Suez Canal, as well as our opposition to the Arab boycott against Israel. These undesirable restrictions, as you are aware, are an outgrowth of the Palestine problem, which continues to cause tensions between Israel and the Arab states and to perpetuate unfortunate circumstances such as those whereby nearly one million Arab refugees are not able to return to their homes. It is our Government's firm conviction that an Arab-Israel settlement will one day come, not by coercion but by a spirit of accommodation on both sides. As progress is made in that direction, such problems as boycotts, restrictions and homeless refugees will disappear. Incidentally, there appears to be considerable inaccurate information surrounding the Suez Canal transit question. For example, it is said that American ships are being "barred" from the Canal for having called at Israeli ports. As a matter of fact, not a single American ship has thus far been denied passage through the Canal. Out of a total United States maritime fleet of 498, only 23 ships have been placed on the so-called Arab black-list, because of prior calls at Israeli ports. These 23 are denied entry at Arab ports but there has been no instance of denial of their transit of the Canal. In this connection you may have read in the press that American labor unions in New York have set up picketing against the United Arab Republic ship Cleopatra. The purpose of the picketing is to impel the United Arab Republic to abandon its restrictions against Israel shipping. Unfortunately, this objective is not being served. Asserting their determination to resist such pressures, the Arab countries are establishing counterpicketing against American shipping. This reaction against coercion, which is not unnatural in young emerging states, means in effect that at least 20 American ships with 1,000 seamen aboard will be affected within the next month. It also means that for every Arab ship Americans may boycott some 30 American ships may be subjected to Arab boycott. As can be seen, outside attempts, no matter how well intentioned, to compel one or more of the Middle Eastern countries to follow a certain behavior have wide repercussions. I might add that while resentments against such pressure in Arab-Israel matters have direct repercussions on our interests in 10 Arab countries from Morocco to the Persian Gulf, the sympathy for these 10 nations is inevitably widespread throughout Africa and Asia. This is a critical juncture in the history of those two continents. Just when the young AfroAsian nations and particularly the Arab nations appear for the first time to be becoming aware of the fact that the Communists have been falsely posing as patriotic nationalists, it ill behooves us, through an appearance of placing "strings" on our aid, to incur the deep resentment or hostility not only of the 10 Arab nations but of their natural friends, the states of Africa and Asia. In fact, we do not believe it is in Israel's long-range interest that such enmity be aroused and choosing of sides precipitated throughout the Afro-Asian region. In our view, avoidance of coercive tactics against Israel's neighbors is in Israel's interest. In just over a decade, Israel has quadrupled its exports. Its unfavorable trade balance has steadily been reduced. Israel's Gross National Product per capita is now more than twice that of any of its neighbors and even exceeds that of Netherlands and Italy. While foreign funds from various sources at an average rate of nearly $1,000,000 per day have been partly responsible, primary responsibility for this progress lies with the Israeli people themselves, their ingenuity, industriousness, and devotion to purpose. Parenthetically, I should note that our government has been consistent in its support to Israel. We have extended to Israel with its population of under 2,000,000 a sizeable total of various types of assistance, including PL 480. Such assistance, as you know, is continuing. Conditions have thus far been sufficiently favorable to allow Israel to make great strides. In our view it would be a grave mistake to have that progress disturbed by actions which can only stir up area tensions to Israel's detriment. As you know, it is the view of our Government that the tensions of |