Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

501.BC/8–1547 Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Johnson)

secret
us urgent

Washington, August 15, 1947—4 p. m.

353. There follows Dept’s views as to what have been significant developments thus far in Anglo-Egyptian case. In addition Dept’s opinion of what course US should now pursue in light of these developments is also set forth.

I. (a) UK attitude—UK apparently still desires SC to reject Egyptian charges and not to retain matter on SC agenda since such might imply UK was in some way at fault.¹ UK however seems quite ready to resume negotiations with Egypt. (Re S/P.V./182² p. 30)

(b) Egypt—While-attitude of Nokrashi Pasha in SC would seem to indicate that Egypt desires complete evacuation of Brit forces from Egyptian territory and termination of Brit administration in Sudan Dept nevertheless has reasons to believe that this is an extreme position from which Egyptian Govt would retreat if suitable compromise could be evolved. Reasons for belief are attitudes of Azzam Pasha (reDeptel 346 Aug 12), Fawzi Bey and Faris el Khouri³ as reported to Dept. Dept understands that Fawzi Bey believes Egypt would be willing to accept disposition of case by SC in following order of preference: (1) recommendation by SC that UK and Egypt resume negotiations with aid of mediator (2) recommendation by SC that parties resume negotiations during which period SC would keep matter on continuing list of items of which it is seized (3) recommendation by SC that parties refer matter to ICJ. (Dept understands Fawzi Bey believes SC cannot drop matter entirely. Such action would be repugnant to Egypt. Ref urtel 742 Aug 15⁴). It is understood that Faris el Khouri prefers second alternative proposed by Fawzi.

(c) Brazil—Since Brazilian rep believes that SC should either (1) dismiss case or (2) recommend parties resume negotiations and drop case from agenda or (3) failing that SC should recommend resumption of negotiations and keep matter on continuing agenda (reurtel 738 Aug 13⁴) it is evident that Brazilian does not feel Egypt has made strong case.

(d) Other delegations—Dept believes statement of Polish rep indicates either Poland or USSR may submit resolution to SC calling upon UK to remove troops from Egypt. Since USSR has indicated desire to speak at next meeting, Dept believes it most probable that resolution of this type may be introduced at that time. Dept understands however that Brazilian rep has also requested (reurtel 739 Aug 14⁵) opportunity to speak.

II. Dept believes that there are important similarities between attitude of Egyptian delegation as expressed by Fawzi Bey, positions of UK and Brazil and US position which has thus far been based on hope that it might be possible for parties to resume negotiations or settle dispute by peaceful means on own choice. Chief points which apparently remain to be settled before negotiations can be resumed are:

(a) Whether or not a mediator should participate in negotiations.

(b) Whether or not matter should remain on list of items of which Council continues to remain seized.

(c) Nature of SC recommendations to parties i.e. whether SC will (1) express hope etc. (2) recommend etc. (3) or suggest to parties that they resume negotiations.

Dept does not believe UK would accept idea of mediator participating in negotiations after parties had resumed them. In addition question of selecting mediator is extremely difficult. US does not desire to act as mediator nor does it desire to be placed in position of refusing to perform (reDeptel 341 Aug 8) that role.

As far as question of retaining matter on list of those of which Council is seized Dept suggests that it might be possible to meet both Brit and Egyptian desires by following formula employed in first Iranian case by which SC simply requested that parties inform SC of results achieved from negotiations. This does not necessitate retaining matter on continuing list which is apparently abhorrent to Brit. At same time however it would give to Egypt certain solace in form of realization that whatever results are achieved from resumption of negotiations will be presented to SC at some future date.

Manner in which SC would indicate to parties its desire that they resume negotiations is not of fundamental importance in Dept’s view. We would prefer that SC make simple expression of hope that parties resume negotiations. If there were evident willingness of parties to do this Dept believes such simple expression of hope would be sufficient.

III. Conclusions:

(a) Dept adheres to its original belief that settlement of this dispute should be accomplished by resumption of negotiations by parties.

(b) While we do not believe that mediator would be acceptable to Brit and while US does not wish to perform in such capacity we believe that this is matter which should be left to Brit and Egyptians to settlement between themselves.

(c) We hope that it will be possible for Brit and Egyptian reps to SC to agree upon formula for resumption of negotiations prior to SC meeting on Aug 20. You are at liberty to assist informally and on confidential basis in any way you deem feasible to bring about such agreement.

(d) As to whether SC should remain seized of question Dept believes that there is no real reason for such and believes that SC should simply request parties to inform it of results achieved by negotiations. (You might wish to point out however to your Brit colleague that if matter is on continuing list of SC there is less likelihood that Egypt would present matter to GA.) If, SC decides to retain matter on list, Dept believes that it should be made very clear that no guilt whatsoever is being imputed to UK by such action.

(e) Since there is strong possibility that USSR may present resolution calling for removal troops it may be desirable to suggest that Brazilian rep present resolution when he speaks in SC along lines set forth in subparagraph (f) below.

(f) SC resolution disposing of case might be along following lines: “SC takes note of statements made by reps of UK and other SC members; it expresses hope that parties will resume negotiations at earliest opportunity and that they will report to Council results achieved therefrom.”

(g) Should it be impossible for parties to agree on basis for resumption of negotiations Dept believes consideration should then be given to reference of matter to ICJ. In this connection Dept adheres to pertinent passages re ICJ in Deptel 341, Aug 8.

(h) Finally Dept hopes that you will take whatever steps you consider are necessary either by consultation with delegates or other means to effectuate general objectives and thoughts expressed herein prior to Aug. 20.

Attention London: Please inform For Office of US views as set forth in 3402 and 3411 Aug 8⁶ and this telegram.

Sent NY as Dept’s 353 rptd London as Dept’s 3510 and Cairo as Dept’s 1191.

Lovett

1. According to telegram 4352, August 12, from London, Michael Wright, Assistant Under-Secretary in the British Foreign Office, informed an Embassy officer that Mr. Bevin, the previous day, had expressed keen disappointment that U.S. support for the British position had not been as clear-cut as he had hoped. Mr. Wright thought it essential that the Security Council firmly express the view that the Egyptians had not made their case and advise both sides to resume negotiations. He also felt it particularly important that the Council not allow the case to remain on its agenda, thereby casting doubt on the essential principle of the sanctity of treaties (501.BC/8–1247). For further views of Mr. Bevin on the Egyptian question, see Mr. Henderson’s memorandum of September 9, p. 496.
2. This symbol was used to designate the provisional record of the 182nd meeting of the Security Council which took place on August 13. For that portion of the remarks made by Sir Alexander Cadogan on British readiness to resume negotiations with Egypt, see SC, 2nd Yr., No. 75, p. 1956.
3. The Egyptian and Syrian Representatives, respectively, at the United Nations.
4. Not printed.
4. Not printed.
5. Not printed.
6. These telegrams repeated telegrams 341 and 343 to New York, pp. 787, 790. The substance of this telegram was given to Michael Wright on August 16. Telegram 4452, August 16, from London reported his preliminary reaction was that “Dept’s formula does not make it sufficiently clear to world that Egyptians have not made their case. He feels that while evasion of this fact might be of short term utility general issue at stake is too big to leave it unclarified. On other hand Wright felt strongly that SC recommendation should be worded in manner calculated to respect Egyptian sensibilities.” (501.BC/8–1647)