501.BC/9–1747: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State
845. USUN proposes to introduce in SC attached Egyptian case resolution with a statement along following lines:
“It is quite clear that the majority of seven members of the SC favor a disposition of this case under Article 33 of the Charter by requesting the parties to renew the negotiations which were so nearly successful. Various resolutions proceeding on this basic assumption have been presented to the SC and voted upon. The Council has so far been unable to find the exact form of word which would command the support of seven of its members.
“At the last meeting only one issue appeared to separate the parties to the dispute as well as those members of the Council who had expressed themselves in favor of further negotiation by the parties. That issue was as to the procedure which the parties should follow in conducting their negotiations. On the one hand, the thought was expressed that the problem of evacuation should be separated from the other issues and dealt with first; on the other hand, the thought was expressed that all the issues should be negotiated together.
“In view of the US delegation, this disputed issue of procedure between the parties should be made the subject of negotiation equally with all other issues of a procedural or substantive character that pertain to the present dispute. If the Council is to declare in effect that the parties have not exhausted the remedies of Article 33, it should, in our opinion, follow that principle through to its conclusion and require the parties to negotiate with respect to all issues separating them. We feel that it would be wiser for the Council not to attempt to make a decision on this or any other point in dispute between the parties when recommending further action under Article 33.
“The record of the Council’s discussion and consideration of this matter has been made. The members of the Council expressed their positions both by statements and by votes. The parties can and undoubtedly will consider this record carefully when considering what action they should take under any resolution the Council should pass. It is perhaps not too much to say that the exact tone of the resolution is no longer of such importance as it might have been when, for example, the first Brazilian resolution was introduced.
Draft Resolution:
“The Security Council, having considered the dispute between the United Kingdom and Egypt brought to its attention by the letter of the Prime Minister of Egypt, dated July 8, 1947;
[Page 810]Having noted the views expressed by its members during the discussion, and the position each member has taken with respect to the various resolutions and amendments thereto placed before the Council;
Considering that the methods of adjustment provided for by Article 33 of the Charter have not been exhausted and that the settlement of the dispute may best be obtained under existing circumstances through recourse to those methods;
Recognizing the natural desire of the Egyptian Government for the early and complete evacuation of British troops from Egypt;
Having confidence that the renewal of negotiations between the parties will result in the settlement of all the issues in dispute between the parties;
Call upon the governments of the United Kingdom and Egypt
- (a)
- To settle the issues in dispute beween them in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter by peaceful means of their own choice;
- (b)
- To keep the Security Council informed of the progress of the settlement and report thereon to the Council in the first instance not later than 1 January 1948.”1
-
According to telegram 852, September 18, from New York, Mr. Fawzi informally informed the United States Delegation on September 18 that the proposed U.S. resolution was not acceptable to Prime Minister Nokrashy because the proposal amounted to a dismissal of the Egyptian case (501.BC/9–1847).
Telegram 856, September 19, from New York, reported that Sir Alexander Cadogan, the following day, informed the United States Delegation that he too did not like the U.S. resolution, stating that “if the reference to the Egyptian desire for evacuation of British troops were retained in the proposed resolution, language should be included noting that the British have the right under treaty to station such troops there.” (501.BC/9–1947)
↩