Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V

674.00/5–2350

The Ambassador in Egypt (Caffery) to the Secretary of State ¹

confidential
No. 1185

Cairo, May 23, 1950.

Subject: Foreign Minister’s Statement on Egypt’s Foreign Policy

Foreign Minister Salaheddin Bey told the Senate last night that Egypt stands by the recent resolution of the Arab League Political Committee regarding Jordan, that Egypt continues to recognize the All-Palestine Government, that the troops stationed at Gaza serve a strictly defensive purpose, and that Egypt continues to believe in the utility of the Arab League.

Although none of the Foreign Minister’s remarks in reply to an interpellation on these subjects indicated any change in Egyptian policy, his statement on the Arab League was noted with interest because of speculation here as to what attitude Egypt will adopt if the League Council, which convenes on June 12, refuses to expel Jordan. Salaheddin Bey’s statement threw little light on this contingency, however, beyond asserting that a regional bloc of the Arab states is clearly in their own interest.

On the subject of Egyptian-Jordanian relations, the Foreign Minister stated merely that Egypt’s views have already been set forth in the official communiqués issued by the Secretariat of the Arab League on April 13, 1950 (Embtel 383, April 14²) and at the end of the Political Committee meetings from May 11 to 15, 1950 (Despatch 1119 of May 17³).

With regard to Palestine, Salaheddin Bey observed that all the Arab states except Jordan had recognized the All-Palestine government headed by the great leader, Ahmed Hilmy Pasha. Even though present circumstances prevent that government from exercising authority in Palestine, the object of its recognition by Egypt and the Arab states is to place on record their insistence on the Arab character of Palestine until such time as a final Palestinian settlement is made on the basis of right and justice.

With regard to the Egyptian troops at Gaza, the Foreign Minister said that this question is regulated by the Rhodes Armistice, which Egypt “rigorously respects”. He went on to say that “as for Egypt’s military preparation, it does not include any aggressive intentions and has no other goal than to safeguard Egypt’s internal security and to insure her defense in case an attack should be directed against her.”

On the subject of the Arab League, Salaheddin Bey affirmed that there is no doubt that the League has political benefits for its members. At the present time there is a tendency all over the world to form regional blocs, he affirmed, and it is particularly in the interest of the Arab states to do so because their language, history, religion, customs, hopes, and fears have so much in common. “However”, he added, “this coalition can prove helpful only if its members work with a spirit of sincerity, fraternity, and unselfishness, in order to respect the desires of the Arab peoples and to safeguard their interests.”

In describing the accomplishments of the Arab regional bloc, Salaheddin Bey made reference to the recently acquired independence of Syria and Lebanon and the Arab attitude on the questions of independence for Indonesia and Libya. He praised the manner in which the Arab states had rallied around Egypt when her case was submitted to the Security Council and asserted that the Arab peoples would never forget “the support which Egypt has always given at the United Nations to countries which had not obtained home rule.” The Foreign Minister also made reference to the government’s statement in the Speech from the Throne that Egypt would seek to establish the League on the basis of “sincere cordiality and complete sincerity”, and declared that the attitude which Egypt has adopted in the League sessions since that time proves that the government has fulfilled its engagements to Parliament.

At the conclusion of the Foreign Minister’s remarks, Senator Al Sayid Ahmed Abaza (Liberal Constitutionalist), who had presented the interpellation, arose to say that he still wanted to know what Egypt had derived from the League. If matters continue to go on as at present, he asserted, Egypt should withdraw from the League.

Jefferson Caffery

1. This despatch was repeated to London, Moscow, Arab capitals, and Tel Aviv.
2. Not printed; but see editorial note, p. 856.
3. Not printed; it advised of the disappointment in Egyptian official circles and the pleasure the Iraqis and Jordanians at Yemen’s defection from the Egyptian-Saudi Arabian bloc in the latter’s attempt to expel Jordan from the Arab League for annexing eastern Palestine. The Yemeni Delegate had abstained from voting because of the absence of instructions from his Government (786.00/5–1750). The despatch also noted that “it was by unanimous vote, with Jordan abstaining, that Jordan was found guilty of violating the April 13th resolution. Iraq and Yemen differed, therefore, from the other members of the League only on the punishment to be handed out to Jordan.”