974.5301/7–1951: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations1
43. 1. In view nature Israel complaint Dept considers Suez question shld be brought up in SC as part of gen Pal question and SC action shld be based primarily on Egypt’s violation of spirit and intent of Armistice Agreement. Altho second aspect Suez question para 4b Deptel 172 wld be treated incidentally, Dept quite concerned that too great emphasis on effect of blockade on other than Israel commerce and on belligerent rights might lead to suggestion UK, US, Fr and possibly Neth are also parties to dispute with Egypt in view of protest made by these powers, and under Chapter VI procedure shld abstain in voting on proposed or similar res. While such suggestion cld be handled by Jebb as Pres, Dept feels strength of SC position vis-à-vis Egypt might be considerably weakened. Furthermore, problem of exercise belligerent right is legal question which cld only be finally determined by ICJ and we believe SC shld not attempt assert its right to deal with this problem.
2. Dept has noted drafting modifications suggested by UKDel re paras 5, 6 and 7 and is in full agreement with those suggestions. We wld suggest that para 6 cld be strengthened by a quotation from Armistice Agreement, specifically para 4 Art 1 and/or para 2 Art XII. We believe that this wld indicate that factually speaking hostilities not only no longer exist, but are ruled out indefinitely. This is basically what Dept had in mind in para 5 Deptel 17. We consider effect all these changes wld be that SC action basically rests on Egypt violation of intent and spirit Armistice Agreement.
3. It is probable Egypt arguments in presenting case will be predominantly legalistic, based on Riley findings, alleged belligerent rights, and 1888 Convention. It is possible Egypt will request consideration these pts by ICJ and in this event US, in view its consistent policy re utilization ICJ, wld be inclined support. Shld Egypt make such request and it gained support, we wld envisage modification para 11 of UK draft res so that SC wld call upon Egypt to suspend restrictions pending ICJ advisory opinion. We share UK preference that this procedure be avoided but UKDel shld be left in no doubt re our attitude.
4. While effect Suez restrictions on maritime powers not involved in problem and shld not form basis for SC action, we nevertheless [Page 784] believe it wld be appropriate for SC in its res to note wider implications restrictions. UK draft in gen recognizes proper relationship of this element thru placing para 9 and 10 after SC findings. Dept suggest this relationship eld be further clarified thru amending para 9 and 10 to read as fol:
“… and further noting that the restrictions on the passage of goods thru the Suez Canal to Israeli ports are denying to nations, at no time connected with the conflict in Pal, invaluable supplies required for their econ reconstruction; and that these restrictions together with sanctions applied by Egypt to certain ships which have visited Israeli ports rep unjustified interference with the rights of nations to navigate the seas and to trade freely with one another.”
5. US disposed to co-sponsor if suggested approach to SC debate and substance suggested revisions including UKDel’s contained page 2 UK draft res (US/S/1794)3 are acceptable to UK. In co-sponsoring we assume UK will continue to take lead particularly in securing other co-sponsors.
6. As UK res with suggested modifications wld appear to be satis, Dept wld see no necessity for considering Israeli draft res. In fact we can see considerable disadvantage in Israel pressing its views or circulating draft res.
7. Re timing dept assumes Jebb will wish to initiate SC consideration of this complaint during his presidency.
- Drafted by Stabler (NE), Ludlow, and Bechhoefer (UNP); cleared with McGhee (NEA) and with L and BNA; transmission approved by Hickerson. Reneated for information to London, Tel Aviv, and Paris, and by air to Ankara, Jidda, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Amman.↩
- Dated July 9, p. 756.↩
- Dated July 12, p. 764.↩