501.BC/8–2947: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
us urgent
3800. Urtel 4706 Aug 29. British Ambassador called yesterday afternoon to express British Govt’s concern Herschel Johnson remarks. [Page 804] However he did not make clear that FonOff gave them such far-reaching interpretation as indicated urtel.
It would appear that FonOff has jumped unwarranted conclusions based incomplete reports. For your info and for possible clarification of FonOff following is exact text of para in which remark appears:
“I prefer the Brazilian resolution because I think it should be in general terms. The main object is to get a resolution which would commend itself to the loyal co-operation of the two parties, and on which the Council could reach a majority opinion. I must say that while I do not see any objection to it particularly, I do not see any reason why the second phrase of the first paragraph starting with the words ‘mutual assistance’ should be in there, or why the Security Council should think it necessary to put such a mandatory stipulation in recommendations to two sovereign states. It seems to me that it might very well come out, and then the resolution would be acceptable to my delegation.”1 (The word “pointless” does not appear anywhere in verbatim text of Johnson’s statements Aug 28.)
As should be apparent from foregoing text, Johnson did not at all mean to say that US Govt had slightest objection future mutual defense arrangements between Britain and Egypt. He was merely expressing our view that specific recommendations to two states that they conclude such arrangements went beyond proper scope of Security Council action in this case. Furthermore, to insist on clause in question which was unacceptable to Egyptians would defeat purpose of Council which is to find solution acceptable to both parties regarding method of reaching agreement on their present differences.
Johnson, who was speaking extemporaneously, was addressing himself to the needs of the resolution before the Council and not to the merits of the Anglo-Egyptian dispute.
Our info does not indicate that Council or public interpreted Johnson’s statement in sense in which it appears understood by FonOff. To remove any possible doubt you may assure FonOff this Govt has not in any way changed its position regarding any mutual defense arrangements between Egypt and Great Britain which might follow settlement of present dispute.2
Sent to London as [3800], rptd to New York as [383].
- The official record of Ambassador Johnson’s remarks is printed in SC, 2nd yr., No. 86, p. 2312.↩
- On September 9, the Secretary of State replied to Lord Inverchapel’s communication of September 2 (see footnote 1, p. 803) along the lines of this telegram (501.BC/9–247). For further affirmation of parts of telegram 3800, see telegram 3883, September 8, to London, p. 330.↩