974.5301/7–1051: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Department of State 1
priority
61. Re Suez: Yesterday afternoon in meeting with Jebb (UK) and Lacoste (France) present, Gross gave US views on SC consideration of Suez Canal dispute in accordance with Deptel 17, July 9.2 Re our view of role we should play (para 3), group agreed res requesting Egypt to drop restrictions would probably pass even if US did not co-sponsor if, of course, USSR does not veto. We said Israelis had told us Malik had informed them USSR would as usual on Near Eastern matters abstain. Jebb and Lacoste thought this most important and insured res adoption. However Lacoste later privately expressed to us his personal deep disappointment at our reluctance to co-sponsor possible res. He said Egyptian attitude is indefensible, US, UK and France are signatories to tri-partite declaration on stability in Middle East, and they should take strong and open leadership in combating restrictions so widely prejudicial.
Jebb asked what would happen if res of above mentioned type adopted: Would Arabs leave UN? Would Egyptians defy res? Would we support sanctions in that case?
Re our view armistice agreement terminated belligerency, Jebb questioned this interpretation, pointing out armistice agreement did not end state of war. He said our theory would require UN lift all restrictions against No. Korea as soon as armistice agreement signed. Lacoste observed the French Govt had always refused to recognize state of war existed between Israel and Arab states, and felt in any case armistice agreement terminated whatever hostilities had been going on in Palestine. Both he and Jebb felt need for legal opinion whether state of belligerency ceased with armistice agreement.
Gross inquired whether UK would sponsor res on Suez. Fowler (UK) replied instructions just arrived, not yet seen by Jebb, indicated London prepared to take leading part in res even unto sponsoring.
At Jebb’s instigation there was some discussion regarding whether he should step down during Suez debate. Lacoste pointed out Turkey had not stepped down when co-sponsoring May 18 res on Syria-Israel dispute and Gross thought decision depended on whether UK was directly and manifestly party to dispute.