974.5301/7–2751: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Department of State 1
priority
153. Re Suez. With Israeli and Egyptian first statement on record2 and SC mtgs begun, we think next step to be taken with view to developing case along lines preferred by US should be frank talk ourselves alone with Fawzi. Such occasion will present itself Monday, July 30, when Gross lunches with him. In telecon which resulted in this date, Gross told Fawzi we had in mind trying to find out what specifics Fawzi could develop re recent rumors of Egyptian proposals or intentions. Fawzi indicated that he would be prepared to go into this at lunch.
We think operations in NY carried out by UK and French as well as ourselves can, unless Caffery is engaged in a delicate one in Cairo which might be prejudiced by talks here, be utilized to get across to Egyptian Govt beyond doubt and wishful thinking what and how firm our position is. We should like to tell Fawzi (a) we are in no doubt re merits of case and want restrictions entirely dropped; (b) question is how to get them lifted; (c) we are Egypt’s friend and would hope it can spare itself the blow to its prestige of SC res of nature we are talking over with British and French (summary of which we would communicate to Fawzi); (d) has Fawzi any specific proposals to this end?
Jebb has engagement to see Fawzi Monday afternoon. French have instructions to press for intensive diplomatic explorations and can be counted on to add their bit with Fawzi. Both they and Brit prefer tripartite approach to Fawzi and although Jebb has indicated to him, without our authorization, UK desire for joint US-UK-Fr [Page 802] discussions, we have not committed ourselves to join and do not propose to do so unless our separate talk with Fawzi suggests a joint approach clearly desirable.
Re talk with Fawzi, we should be greatly helped by Dept’s views on following subjects before lunch Monday:
- (1)
- Is Dept prepared to state flatly there is not and has not been state of war between Israel and Egypt;
- (2)
- Is it our minimum demand that Egypt fully suspend restrictions or lighten them “to point of invisibility”;
- (3)
- In light of Fawzi’s assumption in his SC statement yesterday that Egypt is at war and has full right to practice canal restrictions and carry out blockade measures even on high seas, could SC sign off from giving opinion on this point of such basic importance to armistice agreement system in general;
- (4)
- Does fact that Caffery still may have initiative in Cairo have any restrictive effect on conversations with Fawzi in NY?
Finally, to achieve maximum impact on Egyptian Govt, we recommend identical approaches as above (points a-d) also by Dept to Egyptian Emb and Caffery to FonOff.
- Repeated to Paris, London, and Cairo.↩
- The Security Council discussed the matter of restrictions imposed by Egypt on the passage of ships through the Suez Canal at its 549th to 553d, 555th, 556th, and 558th meetings, on July 26, August 1, 16, 27, and 29, and September 1. See U.N. Docs. S/PV.549–553, 555–556, and 558.↩