Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

974.531/6–1251: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Egypt ¹

secret

Washington, June 12, 1951—7 p. m.

1288. Dept understands that Den, Nor, Swed and SoAfr have recently made representations re Canal restrictions similar to those of UK; that Ital has promised make representations and that Aust will probably take like action. Paris tel 7564, rptd Cairo 66, Jun 6,² indicates Fr also inclined this direction.

In view above and last sentence urdes 2810, May 26,³ Dept believes US shld now also make representations. Since US made at least ten written or oral protests re Canal and other restrictions since May, 1948, and since these protests have virtually been ignored, we believe our representations this time shld go further than routine follow-up of Dec 11 note.⁴ Dept emphasizes it continues to be seriously concerned by Egypt restrictions on air and surface transportation in gen and desires Emb give constant consideration ways of resolving this problem. We do not agree that Egypt Govt wld be justified in its belief that Canal and other restrictions do not adversely affect Amer interests, commercial and otherwise and Dept instr 107, Jun 5,⁵ contains detailed analysis our views this point. While Emb may be correct this question can only be dealt with satis in SC, we feel Egypt Govt shld be left in no doubt our protests are motivated solely by our interest in protecting legitimate operations US vessels and aircraft in Eastern Medit area. However, if question does arise in SC, our attitude wld be one of disapproval Egypt restrictions. We wld prefer that Egypt lift restrictions voluntarily as result protests maritime powers rather than as result SC action which wld probably be interpreted in Arab states as pro-Israel. If it comes to SC action however we will be obliged to state fully views which have been made known to Egypt Govt over past three years.

Unless you perceive over-riding objection you shld deliver note along fol lines:

“I have honor refer Embs note No. 184 Dec 11 1950, re restrictions imposed by Egypt Govt on ships transitting Suez Canal and to numerous previous communications which have been made to the Egypt Govt since May, 1948, on this subject and on restrictions imposed on air and surface transportation in gen.

“It is matter of deep concern to US Govt that these restrictions are still maintained. My govt has therefore instructed me once again to invite Your Excellency’s attn to serious view it takes of these restrictions and to state US Govt considers them to be unreasonable, impracticable and unjustified.

“In addressing itself to this serious problem my govt is motivated solely by its desire to protect legitimate interests of US which have been and continue to be adversely affected by these restrictions and its views are held without prejudice to whatever may be decided by the Egypt-Israel MAC, the Special Committee or SC.

“I have been further instructed to state my govt is confident that a review of this question will cause the Egypt Govt to take necessary steps to remove these restrictions.”

In presenting above note to FonMin Dept hopes you will emphasize fact that we are acting only because important US interests involved and without re Israel situation.⁶ In event FonMin inquires how restrictions have adversely affected US interests you are authorized to give him aide-mémoire based on Depts instr 107.

Re Embdes 2446 Apr 11 we agree that reply to Egypt aide-mémoire of Apr 9⁷ shld be limited to Akaba situation only. You shld therefore at some appropriate time, either in connection with the above note or not as you see fit, address communication to FonOff in reply its aide-mémoire containing operative paragraph on fol lines:

“US Govt has considered aide-mémoire of Apr 9 and Emb has been instructed to state that considerable doubts are entertained by US re validity and legality of measures which Egypt Govt proposes to take at entrance to Gulf Akaba. US Govt, therefore, fully reserves its rights in connection with this situation.”⁸

Acheson

1. Repeated to Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Canberra, Copenhagen, Damascus, Jidda, London, New York, Oslo, Paris, Pretoria, Rome, Stockholm, Tel Aviv, and The Hague. Telegram drafted by Mr. Stabler in NE and cleared with UNP, BNA, and L/NEA.
2. Not printed.
3. On May 23, the British Embassy in Cairo had delivered to the Foreign Ministry a note of protest over Suez Canal restrictions. (Copy enclosed with despatch 2796 from Cairo, not printed; 674.84A/5–2551.) In despatch 2810 the Ambassador had stated in part: “If it should develop later that all the other Maritime powers have followed the British action we might want to consider at that time sending a routine followup on our previous note.…” (974, 5301/5–2651) The note mentioned in the quotation is cited in footnote 6, below.
4. No. 184. It forms enclosure 4 to despatch 1439 from Cairo, December 19, 1950, not printed. (974.5301/12–1950)
5. Not printed. (974.5301/6–551)

6. Ambassador Caffery delivered this note on June 15. In despatch 2993 from Cairo, June 18, he commented as follows:

   “I am personally convinced that the Egyptians were prepared to make modifications in these restrictions and there was evidence some two months ago in the press that the Government was preparing the public for such a move.

   “However, the storm of protest in the British Parliament over the restrictions and the firm tone of the recent British note have now placed the Egyptian Government in a position whereby any modification of its stand would appear to be yielding to British pressure, a step which is politically impossible.

   “For this and other reasons enumerated in my recent telegrams, I deemed it advisable to make entirely clear to the Foreign Minister that the United States protest was an independent action, based on the adverse effect that the restrictions were having on United States interests.”

   A handwritten, unsigned marginal note next to the final paragraph reads: “That’s what we wanted.” (974.531/6–1851)

7. For the despatch and enclosed aide-mémoire, see pp. 633 and 628, respectively.
8. In telegram 59 from Cairo, July 17, the Embassy reported that this note had been delivered but did not specify the date. (974.531/7–1751)