Office of the Historian

674.84A/5–451: Telegram

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

secret
Cairo, May 4, 1951—2 p. m.

1130. With regard to proposal that note re Akaba shld be expanded to review and renew our protests on Suez Canal and transport restrictions generally (Deptel 1068 May 22 rptd London 4998, Tel Aviv 481, Jidda 365, Amman 152) I believe reasoning on page 9 Current Fon Relations April 253 outlining basis for Dept’s rejection Brit suggestion for renewed protest on Haifa restrictions are also applicable in present instance. Our position is on record with GOE and renewal at this time wld not likely really to contribute to result we desire. In fact it might have opposite tendency since GOE, with considerable justification, I believe, does not consider that Amer commercial interests are being seriously affected by her restrictions. GOE wld probably interpret undue unilateral interest on our part as confirmation that restrictions are of some utility insofar as Israel is concerned and that our interest reflects pro-Israeli policy.

In gen, views on this question are same as outlined in mytel 502, Nov 20, 19504 commenting on similar proposal, namely, that only chance of effective solution lies through MAC and SC.

I wld suggest therefore that Akaba protests be confined to that particular problem.

[ Caffery ]
  1. Repeated for information to Amman, Jidda, London, and Tel Aviv.↩

  2. In this telegram the Department had in part suggested:

    “Dept agrees reply shld be made to Egypt aide-mémoire re Akaba (Embdes 2446 Apr 11 [p. 633] and Deptel 1020 Apr 18 [not printed]) lest silence be interpreted as US acquiescence in position adopted. … We believe reply shld 1) review restrictions which Egypt has adopted and their effect on US natl interests; 2) set forth arguments contained Deptel 432, Nov 14, 1950 [not printed]; 3) cite gen legal principles involved in Akaba situation, (this situation analogous to passageway to Baltic Sea and Gulf Finland through Sound and Belts between Denmark and Sweden); and 4) assert US inability recognize validity Egypt position.” (674.84A/5–251)

    ↩
  3. Not printed; reference is to Department of State’s classified internal publication, Current Foreign Relations.↩
  4. Not printed.↩