New French UN Ambassador Sees Memorandum As Possible Step Toward Jarring’s Mission

The new French ambassador to the UN. Jacques Kosciusko-Morizet, told a press conference today that he considered the memo the Big Four deputies are working on “a step in the direction” that would make possible the resumption of Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring’s work. The 57-year-old ambassador described the memo on the progress of the Big Four consultations on the Security Council’s cease-fire resolution as “slight improvement” but added: “It’s a long way to the general end.” Dr. Jarring, special UN representative for the Middle East, returned to Moscow last week following talks in New York with Big Four representatives, Israeli Ambassador Yosef Tekoah, and ambassadors of Arab states. It was reported then that Dr. Jarring would return in a few weeks “or sooner, if developments warrant it.” Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet observed, in response to questions by reporters about the significance of the work on the memorandum, that the objective is to “see the situation of where we are. The problem is to allow Ambassador Jarring to resume work. We consider the memorandum as a step in that direction.”

A spokesman for the British said that the deputies began meeting this morning at the U.S. Mission on drafting the memo, scheduled for completion in time for the next Big Four meeting April 15. A British diplomatic source said it was his view that “the decision to charge deputies to draw up a memorandum can only be welcomed. It is a positive decision.” He rejected the word “progress” in reference to a suggestion that work on the memo signified that the Four Power talks will proceed more smoothly. “I prefer the word positive to the word progress,” he said and added he did not want to exaggerate developments of the Big Four talks. He rejected the interpretation by some observers that the Four Power ambassadors, by asking their deputies to do the “homework” of drawing up the memorandum, were, in effect, conceding that the talks were at an impasse.

The British diplomatic source said the difference between using the term memorandum and “catalog” was due to the fact that the latter term provoked certain reactions among the Big Four in previous meetings which they want to avoid in future meetings. The word “catalog” was understood as pinpointing agreements and disagreements among the Four Powers unlike the memorandum which is more general. Asked whether the bilateral talks in Washington would in any way cut across the Big Four talks in New York, the diplomatic spokesman said, “In our view, the bilateral talks are complementary, not an alternative. We welcome the bilateral talks because they can take up larger issues than the confined issues of the Four Power talks,” which deal with the problems of the Middle East.

(In London, the liberal newspaper, The Guardian suggested that Dr. Jarring be replaced as special Middle East negotiator unless United Nations Secretary General U Thant expedites positive guidelines for his mission instead of subjecting him to “neutralization” by Big Four policy delays. “Would it not have been better,” the newspaper asked editorially, “for U Thant himself to write a brief for Dr. Jarring? Could he not have set out his own interpretation, not binding on anyone but as a basis for discussion, on how the Security Council (cease-fire) resolution of November 1967 should be applied? Could he not have proposed a timetable for its application? That would have given Dr. Jarring the mandate he needs; but if Dr. Jarring is to be neutralized, then someone else will have to try.”)