974.5301/7–3051: Despatch
The Ambassador in Egypt (Caffery) to the Department of State 1
No. 205
Subject: Foreign Minister’s Threat To Invoke Article VIII of the Suez Canal Convention of 1888
In a recent conversation with the Foreign Minister he made the off-hand remark that the Egyptian attitude towards restrictions on the Suez Canal traffic to Israel was so strong, that if necessary “Egypt would invoke the portion of the 1888 Convention which called for the convocation of consultative committee of the signatory powers when the security of the Canal was threatened, and thereby bring Russia into the question”.
The Foreign Minister was undoubtedly referring to Article VIII of the convention which reads as follows:
“The Agents in Egypt of the Signatory Powers of the present Treaty shall be charged to watch over its execution. In case of any event threatening the security or the free passage of the Canal, they shall meet on the summons of three of their number under the presidency of their Doyen, in order to proceed to the necessary verifications. They shall inform the Khedivial Government of the danger which they may have perceived, in order that that Government may take proper steps to insure the protection and the free use of the Canal. Under any circumstances, they shall meet once a year to take note of the due execution of the Treaty.
“The last-mentioned meetings shall take place under the presidency of a Special Commissioner nominated for that purpose by the Imperial Ottoman Government. A Commissioner of the Khedive may also take part in the meeting, and may preside over it in case of the absence of the Ottoman Commissioner.
“They shall especially demand the suppression of any work or the dispersion of any assemblage on either bank of the Canal, the object or effect of which might be to interfere with the liberty and the entire security of the navigation.”
Whether or not the Egyptian government could get three of the signatory powers to call for such a meeting would appear to revolve around the question of what countries are regarded as the legal heirs to Austria-Hungary.
The British Embassy was not particularly concerned at this development when the matter was discussed with it. The feeling is that Article VIII has by usage become obsolete. Furthermore, if by some manipulation Egypt were able to convene such a meeting, Britain as a signatory would be in a position to point out that she had consistently brought to the attention of the “Khedivial Government” the restriction which existed to free navigation of the Canal.
[Page 807]Furthermore, the British Embassy has pointed out that commentaries on the subject assume that in accordance with diplomatic practice in meetings of this type any decisions taken would have to be unanimous.
On the surface, therefore, aside from possible legal obstacles which would render the article obsolete, there are many practical barriers which would make it difficult for the Foreign Minister to carry out his threat.
The Embassy would appreciate the Department’s comment on the legal points involved.2