741.56374/5–653: Telegram
No. 1154
The Ambassador in the United
Kingdom (Aldrich) to the Department of
State1
priority
5966. Foreign Office has given us following version, based on Stevenson’s report,2 of yesterday’s meeting in Cairo:
- 1.
- At beginning of meeting, Fawzi said he wished enunciate certain
principles:
- a.
- That sovereignty, property and possession of base should belong exclusively to Egypt;
- b.
- That British equipment left behind should be in Egyptian custody and to greatest possible extent handled by Egyptians with aid minimum number non-Egyptians who during their stay, fixed duration, should train Egyptians to take their place.
- 2.
- British replied that Fawzi was going against the understood purpose
of the conversations which was to set up technical committees
forthwith. The British found unacceptable the following Egyptian
proposals:
- a.
- That technical control of installations and contents base which were British-owned property should be in other than British hands;
- b.
- That British technicians should be replaced by persons other than British after short period (or indeed, during duration of agreement).
- c.
- That channel for technical instructions should be diplomatic.
- 3.
- British said they could not compromise on foregoing points,
but could make effort find formula which would preserve full
respect of Egyptian sovereignty and at same time meet British
technical requirements. They thereupon tabled draft terms of
reference of which following is abbreviated version:
“To draw up plans for transfer present military base area in Canal Zone under Egyptian control. Plan will ensure base area kept in working order at all times and in such condition as enable it be put into full operation immediately when needed. Recommendations will be made re installations within base area and their contents on following basis:
- “a. Egypt will undertake to ensure security British property therein.
- “b. British experts needed shall be limited absolute minimum number required for efficient operation installations.
- “c. Any arrangements proposed for working installations shall not be inconsistent Egyptian sovereignty nor with British ownership property concerned.
- “d. Committee will not concern self with duration of time of arrangements it proposes. This will be determined by delegations”.
- 4.
- Fawzi indicated that unless British prepared accept Egyptian principles, it would be better for them to leave Egypt “bag and baggage”. After Fawzi had repeated this phrase several times, British remarked they had hoped avoid having comment on it when first used, but now wished point out that if this had been initial Egyptian position, it would have been useless enter discussion.
- 5.
- British then proceeded deal with Egyptian principles (see la
and b above):
- a.
- They agreed re sovereignty. Re property, they presumed Egyptians were not asking contents which belonged UK should go to Egypt. Re buildings, facilities and communications, British were prepared discuss transfer Egyptian ownership and technical committee should be instructed work out modalities of transfer. Re possession, British did not know what this term was intended imply. If Egyptians had sovereignty and property, what more was required?
- b.
- Agreed that British equipment should be under Egyptian guard and that handling should be done as far as possible by Egyptian personnel. Question of duration could be for sub-committee to decide.
- 6.
- At end of meeting it was agreed that what was required was means of expressing terms of reference so that committee could devise practical way of combining efficiency of maintenance with Egyptian sovereignty.
- Repeated to Cairo as telegram 316.↩
- In his telegram 5965, May 6, not printed, Ambassador Aldrich reported that the Egyptians had succeeded in precipitating a deadlock in the Cairo talks; that the Foreign Office added that the talks had adjourned with no date set for their resumption; and that the Foreign Office had made no decisions as to its next move. (641.74/5–653)↩