Communication Foul-up’ Blamed for U.S. Vote in Security Council

President Carter late last night repudiated the U.S. vote in the United Nations Security Council in support of a resolution that demanded that Israel dismantle all settlements in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. The stunning reversal, made in a written statement by the President, was described this morning by Ambassador Donald McHenry, the chief U.S. delegate to the UN, as “obviously a communications foul-up somewhere along the line.”

At a breakfast meeting with reporters at the Carnegie Endowment Center, McHenry said he received his instructions to vote for the resolution from Secretary of State Cyrus Vance after a paragraph, No. 7 in the resolution, was to have been deleted because it contained a reference to Jerusalem and freedom of worship and access to the holy places there. (Late story P. 2.)

“Those communicating with me said that if paragraph seven were deleted, that would be consistent with the President’s objections,” McHenry said. The resolution, as adopted unanimously by the Security Council last Saturday, contained a reference to “Jerusalem” five times, including the one in paragraph seven. No distinction was made between East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem in the text of the resolution.

The President’s statement said that “The U.S. vote in the UN was approved” by him “with the understanding that all references to Jerusalem would be deleted. The failure to communicate this clearly resulted in a vote in favor of the resolution rather than abstention.” (Full statement P. 2.)

McHenry said today that U.S. policy “is one strongly disapproving of Israel with regard to settlements.” The State Department made the some point yesterday in justifying the UN vote, saying that the thrust of the resolution was on the settlements.

SAYS VANCE GAVE ‘MARCHING ORDERS’

Asked if he had received his “marching orders” from Vance, McHenry said first, “I can speak on only one end of the situation.” When pressed to say specifically if he had his orders directly from Vance, he replied, “Yes.” He said “I was not involved in the discussion” but “in my judgement” the resolution as voted Saturday did not change U.S. policy. “The President decided he wanted no mention of Jerusalem.”

McHenry said “I have views that I do express and I make recommendations to the State Department.” He would not say what his views are but he observed, quoting from his own remarks in the Security Council Saturday, that “it is impractical” to demand dismantling of settlements and that “this issue should be resolved in the context of the autonomy negotiations.” He added, in that connection that “It is important to note” that there is “really no inconsistency” between the State Department and his views “in New York Saturday.”

Asked what the impact of the foul-up would be on the autonomy talks between Israel, Egypt and the U.S. and on Saudi Arabia which has been pressing the U.S. on Jerusalem and on dismantling settlements, McHenry replied, “Speaking very candidly with you, the effect in the Arab world will not be loving. They feel very strongly on the question of settlements” and “the basic point” of the resolution “was settlements.”

He said the Arabs would be “opposed to the remarkably candid statement today by the, President with regard to what his intentions were” and that “some of them (Arabs) will repeat statements we have heard over and over again — that some kind of pressure was brought on the (U.S.) government.” Asked if he thought that the President’s statement was made under “political pressure,” McHenry said “I was not pressured. As far as instructions were sent to me, we fallowed them to the letter.”

McHenry said the resolution “should have no effect on the autonomy talks. This was a statement with regard to settlements. On the contrary, the point we were making was that the settlements themselves had an impact on the autonomy talks, “he said.

Asked if the U.S. ever accepted a UN Security Council resolution on Jerusalem before, the American envoy replied, “I think you will find ample precedents.” When he was reminded that the U.S. had obtained on two previous resolutions considered less objectionable to Israel, McHenry said. “I don’t know.” Asked if the President’s statement was a “good thing,” he replied, “The President made the statement.”

SHIFTS BLAME TO ISRAEL

In the course of the press conference, which had been arranged a week ago by Foreign Policy magazine, McHenry seemed to put much of the blame for the U.S. position Saturday on the Israeli delegation to the UN. He said “The Israelis wanted it (paragraph seven) out.” Asked if Israel objected to the settlements section, he replied, “Yes” but added, “they didn’t like any of it.”

Asked if he felt there was on east and west Jerusalem or an undivided city. McHenry said “I can only refer you to the President’s statement.” The President has said on several occasions, “we strongly believe Jerusalem should be undivided” with its status to be determined in negotiations.

McHenry noted that Saturday’s resolution is “not binding” but is a “recommendatory one. It is not under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. If it were, it would have been legally binding on Israel and the U.S. It was the advice of the Security Council to Israel on settlements and asked Israel to heed that advice,” he said.

REPORT CARTER APPROVED TEXT

McHenry came to the news conference following a meeting with William Maynes, Assistant Secretary of State for International Affairs. The President’s statement was issued some 50 hours after the Security Council vote and in the wake of bitter protests –officially from the Israeli government — and by friends of Israel in the U.S. According to usually reliable sources, the President had in fact approved the original resolution as it had been presented to him without noting the implications of the provisions on Jerusalem. One report said the President approved every “jot and tittle” of the text.

Other sources said that far from being an error in communications, the action taken was considered State Department policy to pressure Israel. Only yesterday, the State Department again refused to affirm Vice President Walter Mondale’s statement of last November that the President and himself wanted Jerusalem to be “an undivided city.”

The President’s statement, repudiating a U.S. vote in the UN, was seen here to be without precedent. The closest approximation that could be recalled immediately occurred in 1948 in connection with a Security Council resolution that would have had the effect of delaying Israel’s statehood. Sen. Warren Austin, then the chief U.S. delegate to the UN, was prepared to vote for it on institution from the State Department when President Truman ordered him to vote against it. According to sources to recall the incident, a furious Warren put on his hat and walked out.