741.83/3–2447: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
1365. Urtel 1834, Mar 24. Suggestions informally made by Scott-Fox could not in opinion Dept properly be followed. It is questionable [Page 767] whether US which is member of SC should prejudge case by informing Egyptians that they will not receive US support particularly since US does not know exactly what claims Egypt will make. There are indications that no definitive decision has been made by Egyptians as to actual substance of case or form or time of presentation to UN.
Furthermore as to procedure suggested it should be remembered that Egypt is a constitutional monarchy and as such it would undoubtedly view unfavorably a direct approach to King rather than to Prime Min. We believe it would be inadvisable to approach King above head of Prime Min in a matter of this kind. While we hope this case can be settled outside of UN it is our general policy not to discourage invocation of UN procedure.
If Egypt referred matter to SC after hearing both parties SC might dismiss Egyptian complaint on ground that no dispute or situation existed endangering maintenance of international peace and security and therefore SC lacked jurisdiction. If SC decided that it had jurisdiction as first step it might logically call upon parties to settle dispute under Article 33(2) through further negotiation. Latter action might provide a face-saving way for Egyptian Prime Min to resume negotiations with British.
If both UK and Egypt referred matter to SC pursuant to Article 38, SC could recommend either procedures or terms of settlement regardless of whether dispute endangered maintenance of international peace and security. One possible procedure for settlement would be SC recommendation that parties refer matter to ICJ.
Sent London 1365; rptd Cairo 451.