501.BC/8–847 Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Johnson)
us urgent
343. Brit Chargé1 left following aide-mémoire at Dept this afternoon:
“Suggestions have been made that the proper course for the Security Council to take on the Egyptian appeal to the Security Council would be to recommend reference to the International Court on the validity of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936.
H.M. Embassy are instructed to say that His Majesty’s Government have no doubt whatever that their case, which rests on the sanctity of treaties, is so strong that they must firmly maintain their view that the only course open to the Security Council is to reject the Egyptian plea outright and declare that the situation does not threaten international peace and security. H.M.G. are convinced that a vital matter of principle is at stake which is of fundamental importance to all members of the United Nations. No treaty would be safe if the Security Council were to burke the issue by some compromise solution such as a reference to the International Court. H.M.G. cannot conceive the Security Council doing otherwise than make an unequivocal decision dismissing the Egyptian appeal out of hand. Any other decision would cut at the root of the principle of the sanctity of treaties.
[Page 791]It is clear for all to see that H.M.G. have shown themselves ready to negotiate, a revision of the 1936 treaty in accordance with the provisions which it contains, and even to go beyond the letter of their obligations therein. H.M.G. remain ready to negotiate such a revision. But they hold strongly that it must be in accordance with the treaty provisions for revision, and not under the duress of an appeal on the agenda of the Security Council.
Mr. Bevin trusts that the Secretary of State will instruct the United States delegate to the Security Council to support H.M.G. unreservedly.”
Chargé was told US Govt has no doubt of legal soundness of Brit case but that we consider it unrealistic to say that it is inconceivable that Security Council might do anything other than dismiss Egyptian appeal out of hand. In this connection reference was made to Indonesian case as evidence of hasty action of which Council seems capable in disregard of legal aspects.2 We anticipated there might well be considerable support for Egyptian plea on ground that considerations of principle outweighed legal technicalities.
We did not wish to advise Brit Govt nor urge any particular course of action. However, we did wish to explain our apprehensions in this matter.
In our view best course would be to find some means of removing dispute from Council as soon as possible. This could most easily and safely be done by action of the parties to the dispute in agreeing to resume negotiations or attempt some other means of direct peaceful settlement. We emphasized provisions of Article 33 of Charter which require that parties to dispute must make every effort to settle matters among themselves before appealing to Security Council. Failing resumption of direct negotiations, it seemed to us that resort to International Court would be less objectionable than to run the danger of possible attempt by Security Council to achieve more drastic solution.
It was suggested that if Brit could convince Council that possibilities of direct negotiation had not been exhausted, Egyptians might find themselves in difficult position if they persisted in refusing resume negotiations.
Essentially, thoughts expressed to Chargé were that Brit Govt would be making mistake to stand rigidly on its legal position and insist that Council dismiss Egyptian complaint out of hand. We hoped Brit would find some way of avoiding sharply drawn issue in Council.
Foregoing for your info. Dept does not feel this discussion need prevent action by USUN on lines set forth Deptel 341, Aug 8.
Sent to USUN; rptd London [as 3411] and Cairo [as 1168].
- Sir John Balfour.↩
- See memorandum of conversation, August 2, by Under Secretary of State Lovett, vol. vi, p. 1006.↩