網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Being a Westerner myself, I am not unmindful of the disputes in the Snake River country.

The quarrels over water rights extend from the Rio Grande to the Helmand in Afghanistan and Iran-and back again, and they are usually settled only when there is some impartial authority on the ground.

It would not take much imagination to envision what would happen in the way of sabotage and even bloodshed if the waters of the Jordan were to remain unregulated indefinitely.

There is of course room for national water resource development plans by the affected states in the Jordan basin. But to get maximum benefit and equity while avoiding violence, these, it seems to me, should be integrated within the framework of the general Jordan watershed development program.

Having spoken of the interests and the potential advantages of the Arab states and Israel in the development of the Jordan basin, my friends in the Middle East will, I know, understand if I now discuss for a moment the stake that the West has in such a program.

Of course, as religious people, Americans have something more than a passing interest in any dispute raging around the Holy Land, and we have some economic and political interests in the area, too.

For one thing, the American Government is spending $150 million a year in this area for general economic development, and in the last 4 years we have contributed $154 million in support of the Arab refugees alone.

No one has to be on the inside in Washington these days to predict that, much as we sympathize with unfortunate people, the United States is not going to keep on spending that kind of money indefinitely. Certainly, we have a right to expect progress and improvement. Surely, it is not out of order for us to urge undertakings which will enable people to help themselves, just as, I am sure, they want to do. Americans do not want to see communism spread and we know that human misery helps it do so. We want to combat misery, and we are on the side of anyone who feels the same way and is willing to do something about it. We are not the only freedom-loving people on earth, and we should not have the monopoly of combating Communist imperialism.

So we do have material as well as spiritual interest in the valley of the Jordan. It is a continuing interest, and for that reason I do not consider my mission ended. The President has asked me to return to the lands of the Jordan as soon as their leaders have had the opportunity to study our proposal.

As things now stand, I do think that the chances for coordinated development are much better than when I went out to the Near East a few weeks ago. I don't know whether one more journey will settle everything, but if we continue to make progress there will be real reason for optimism.

If, as I hope, the historic waters of the Jordan bring new and green life to suffering people, then I think they will be thrice blessed. They will bless him that gives and him that takes. And they will also bless

men of good will everywhere who would dearly love to see misery on the run in the land that first gave life to the treasured credos of us all-Christian, Jew, and Muslim.

24. PRINCIPLES OF THE JORDAN RIVER DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Statement by the Personal Representative of the President, July 6, 19541

Ambassador Eric Johnston has informed the President and the Secretary of State that Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel have accepted the principle of international sharing of the contested waters of the Jordan River and are prepared to cooperate with the U.S. Government in working out details of a mutually acceptable program for developing the irrigation and power potentials of the river system.2 On his return from a 4-week visit to the area for discussion with Arab and Israeli representatives, Mr. Johnston said that the attitudes of the interested states clearly indicated a desire to evolve a workable plan for economic development of the Jordan Valley despite the difficult political issues outstanding between Israel and the Arab countries. Progress made during the negotiations just concluded has encouraged him to believe that an early understanding on all aspects of such a plan is now a possibility. Mr. Johnston stated that the plan involved acceptance by the Arab countries and Israel of the following principles:

1. The limited waters of the Jordan River system should be shared equitably by the four states in which they rise and flow. This principle was implicit in the valley plans put forward respectively by the Arab states and Israel, both of which clearly recognized the right of the other states to a share of the available waters. It was affirmed by both sides during the recent conversations with Mr. Johnston.

2. A neutral impartial authority should be created to supervise withdrawals of water from the river system in accordance with the division ultimately accepted by all parties. The precise nature of such an authority remains to be determined.

3. Amelioration of the condition of the Arab refugees from Palestine should be a principal objective of the irrigation program for the Jordan Valley.

4. Broad lines of understanding as to the total program should be reached at the earliest possible time, not only in the interest of the refugees but in the interests of economic progress and stability in the

area.

5. Storage of irrigation waters for the valley in Lake Tiberias (Sea

1 Department of State Bulletin, July 26, 1954, p. 132.

2 Mr. Johnston conducted conversations in June 1954 with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel regarding the development of the Jordan River Valley. This visit followed the submission of comments by the Arab States and Israel on the development program which he had submitted to these countries during his first visit in November 1953 (ibid., June 14, 1954, p. 913).

of Galilee) will be considered open-mindedly by all parties, when progress in developing the valley indicates the necessity of using the lake as a principal reservoir.

Mr. Johnston made it clear that while the foregoing principles form a solid basis for further negotiations, there remain a number of specific points on which differences must be reconciled before the valley project can be realized. All of the states concerned have requested that the Government of the United States continue to exercise its good offices in reconciling these outstanding differences.

Ambassador Johnston's mission in the Near East began last October when the President asked him to lay before the Governments of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel a report on unified development of the Jordan Valley prepared by an American engineering firm at the request of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. On his first visit to the area, the states concerned agreed to consider the suggestions contained in the UNRWA report. The Arab countries later submitted a plan for the valley's development and Israel also put forward a plan to Mr. Johnston. These three plans formed the basis of the recent discussions.

25. TABULAR SUMMARY OF NET UNITED STATES GRANTS AND CREDITS TO THE NEAR EAST, SOUTH ASIA, AND AFRICA, 1945-19551

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

1 Harry N. Howard, "The Development of United States Policy in the Near East, South Asia, and Africa During 1955," Part III, Department of State Bulletin, Apr. 9, 1956, p. 593. Figures do not cover the contribution of the Department of State International Educational Exchange Service in this area. The summary is based on Department of Commerce, Foreign Grant and Credits by the United States Government, September quarter, 1955.

$532, 000, 000
268, 000, 000

$2, 499, 000, 000

548, 000, 000

$800, 000, 000 $3, 047, 000, 000

D. OPERATION OF THE ARAB-ISRAELI ARMISTICE REGIME

Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders

26. STATEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND FRANCE, MAY 25, 19501

The Governments of the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, having had occasion during the recent Foreign Ministers meeting in London to review certain questions affecting the peace and stability of the Arab states and of Israel, and particularly that of the supply of arms and war material to these states, have resolved to make the following statements:

1. The three Governments recognize that the Arab states and Israel all need to maintain a certain level of armed forces for the purposes of assuring their internal security and their legitimate selfdefense and to permit them to play their part in the defense of the area as a whole. All applications for arms or war material for these countries will be considered in the light of these principles. In this connection the three Governments wish to recall and reaffirm the terms of the statements made by their representatives on the Security Council on August 4, 1949,3 in which they declared their opposition to the development of an arms race between the Arab states and Israel. 2. The three Governments declare that assurances have been received from all the states in question, to which they permit arms to be supplied from their countries, that the purchasing state does not intend to undertake any act of aggression against any other state. Similar assurances will be requested from any other state in the area to which they permit arms to be supplied in the future.

3. The three Governments take this opportunity of declaring their deep interest in and their desire to promote the establishment and maintenance of peace and stability in the area and their unalterable opposition to the use of force or threat of force between any of the states in that area. The three Governments, should they find that any of these states was preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as members of the United Nations, immediately take action, both within and outside the United Nations, to prevent such violation.

1 Department of State Bulletin, June 5, 1950, p. 886. See also the President's statement of May 25, 1950 (ibid.) and the Secretary's address of May 31, 1950 (supra, pp. 1432–1441).

* See the tripartite communiqué of May 13, 1950; supra, pp. 1458-1459. See U.N. Security Council, Official Records, 433rd and 434th Meetings, 4 August 1949, pp. 20-21, 23-27, and 33-37.

27. REAFFIRMATION OF THE TRIPARTITE DECLARATION: Statement by the President, November 9, 1955 1

All Americans have been following with deep concern the latest developments in the Near East. The recent outbreak of hostilities has led to a sharp increase in tensions. These events inevitably retard our search for world peace. Insecurity in one region is bound to affect the world as a whole.

While we continue willing to consider requests for arms needed for legitimate self-defense, we do not intend to contribute to an arms competition in the Near East because we do not think such a race would be in the true interest of any of the participants. The policy which we believed would best promote the interests and the security of the peoples of the area was expressed in the Tripartite Declaration of May 25, 1950. This still remains our policy.

3

I stated last year that our goal in the Near East as elsewhere is a just peace. Nothing has taken place since which invalidates our fundamental policies, policies based on friendship for all of the peoples of the area.

We believe that true security must be based upon a just and reasonable settlement. The Secretary of State outlined on August 26th the economic and security contributions which this country was prepared to make toward such a solution. On that occasion I authorized Mr. Dulles to state that, given a solution of the other related problems, I would recommend that the United States join in formal treaty engagements to prevent or thwart any effort by either side to alter by force the boundaries between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Recent developments have made it all the more imperative that a settlement be found. The United States will continue to play its full part and will support firmly the United Nations, which has already contributed so markedly to minimize violence in the area. I hope that other nations of the world will cooperate in this endeavor, thereby contributing significantly to world peace.

1 Department of State Bulletin, Nov. 21, 1955, p. 845. issued from the temporary White House in Denver, Colo. 2 Supra.

3 See the President's address of Oct. 20, 1954; infra. Supra, pp. 2176-2180.

This statement was

« 上一頁繼續 »