Editorial Note
On October 6, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Herbert Morrison, cabled the Egyptian Government that he confidently [Page 206] hoped to be able to advance definite defense proposals by October 10. However, on October 7, the Egyptian Government of Nahas Pasha submitted to King Farouk its Bills declaring abrogation of both the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 and the Sudan Condominium Agreements of 1899. The following day, October 8, Nahas Pasha placed these Bills before the Egyptian Parliament and cited 18 precedents justifying unilateral abrogation. The Bills were enacted on October 15 (Survey of International Affairs, 1951, pages 281–282).
In telegram 532 sent niact to Cairo on October 9 and repeated niact to London, Paris, and Ankara, G. Lewis Jones, signing for Secretary Acheson, reported that the British Government “feels strongly” that the Egyptian action toward abrogation “should not deter presentation new proposals as they stand”, and that publication of these proposals should reveal their “reasonable” nature to the world at large. Jones added that the Department of State supported the British position both with respect to presentation and publication of the proposals (780.5/10–951).
However, in telegram 1762, niact, from London of October 10, Ambassador Gifford reported that Stevenson, the British Ambassador in Cairo, “recommends delay of several months in putting MEC proposals to Egyptian Govt.” Gifford added that the Foreign Office had rejected this recommendation for the reasons already advanced to Washington and also because “chances Egyptian acceptance of proposals will probably be even less in several months time since by then Egyptian Parliament will probably have completed work on legislation thus further freezing situation” (780.5/10–1051). But that same day, Ambassador Caffery in Cairo lent his support to Stevenson’s recommendation. In telegram 447 he reported “We 4 Ambassadors are firmly of opinion … that if we were to present proposals now they wld be rejected by Egypt Govt with great popular applause. They wld be pulled to pieces in the press and Parliament. Publication without presentation would be almost as bad.” Caffery added that “My 3 colleagues are telephoning along these lines to their respective govts … We all 4 are very positive about this” (780.5/10–1051).
Wells Stabler, signing for Acheson, replied to Caffery’s views in telegram 547, niact to Cairo, of October 11. Stabler informed Caffery that the Department of State had carefully considered telegram 447 from Cairo and had been informed of Stevenson’s views by the British Embassy in Washington. But the Department continued to agree with the reasoning set forth in Ambassador Gifford’s telegram 1762 from London of October 10, and, moreover, “need for MEC is urgent, and has importance on its own merits beyond current Anglo-Egypt dispute. We had hoped MEC wld serve as vehicle settle this dispute but always intended proceed with MEC whether Egypt participated [Page 207] or not” (780.5/10–1051). In telegram 2126 from Paris, October 11, Ambassador Bruce reported that “Despite misgivings on successful outcome,” French Foreign Minister “Schuman has agreed that out of solidarity with British and ourselves,” Ambassador Couve de Murville “will be instructed to associate himself with démarche to Egyptians” (780.5/10–1151). In telegram 560, niact to Cairo, of October 12, McGhee informed Caffery that the instructions contained in telegram 547 to Cairo of October 11 were confirmed “and we consider four Ambs shld proceed with approach to Egypt Govt without further delay” (780.5/10–1251). Ambassador Wadsworth informed the Department of State in telegram 345 from Ankara, October 12, that “Turkish Govt still of opinion that presentation of proposals to Egyptian Govt should not be postponed” (780.5/10–1251).