501.BB Palestine/9–1049: Telegram
The Chargé in Egypt (Patterson) to the Secretary of State
846. Re London’s telegram 35051 to Department September 1. In conversation with British Chargé my house September 6, Chapman-Andrews seemed surprised on my inquiry concerning the current Egyptian Government attitude toward transit through Suez Canal of military supplies destined for Israel, with especial reference to petroleum. I stated that according to information available to me, tankers were converging on Haifa from various directions and from various places of origin2 so that a decision, if not yet taken by Egyptian Government would appear a matter for very near future. I added that quite recently, however, Hassouna Pasha had orally assured me restrictions on transportation of merchandise in the direction of Israel would henceforward be limited to munitions of war which he described as being arms and ammunition and not including raw materials susceptible of military use or even manufactured goods of like potentiality, such as rubber tires.
Although oil could perhaps not be considered a raw material in that it might be immediately utilized for military purposes, the possibility existed that Hassouna Pasha could be considered as having tacitly assented to the passage through the Suez Canal of petroleum products.
Chapman-Andrews negatived this supposition, stating that his Embassy had obtained information concerning articles regarded by Egyptian Government as absolute contraband and that “carburants” of all kinds (by which French term he understood all petroleum products) were included.
The Under Secretary had spoken to Sir Ronald Campbell (before the latter’s departure) in much the same reassuring, but possibly illusory, sense as he had to me.
Accordingly, some special representations were evidently required if Persian Gulf or other oil were to be allowed through the Suez Canal to Haifa.
Continuing, Chapman-Andrews stated he proposed to request an audience of His Majesty in view of importance of the objectives and of extremely confidential nature of the negotiations. Chapman-Andrews did not hazard a surmise as to whether or not his approach to His Majesty would be successful since he believed the Egyptians fully to realize that the ultimate objective is not so much obtention of [Page 1374] freedom from molestation in Suez Canal as the reopening of the pipeline from Iraq to Haifa.
He explained that the recent incident involving removal of WHO meeting from Alexandria (which is regarded as result of personal intervention of His Majesty in complete disregard of apparent desires and action of his Prime Minister who is concurrently Foreign Minister and Minister of Interior) revealed lack of authority of head of Egyptian Government as contrasted with powerful position of the Chief of State. To make absolutely certain that a decision of prime political and economic importance should not run the risks of being overruled, it now seems necessary, in Chapman-Andrews view, for recourse to be had to His Majesty.
On Chapman-Andrews inquiring if the American Embassy had taken occasion to raise the subject in conversation with Egyptian officials, I replied negatively adding that such information as had reached me had seemingly been supplied solely for purposes of information.
Sent Department 846, repeated London 99.