Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 2

641.74/12–2953: Telegram

No. 1264
The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Butterworth) to the Department of State¹

secret

London, December 29, 1953—7 p.m.

2792. Foreign Office today gave us statement of HMG’s understanding of points agreed and not agreed in Suez talks (Department telegrams 3133, 3167, and 3178; Paris telegrams 2311 and 2320; and Embassy telegram 2687).² Document, which is quite detailed, being transmitted by air pouch.³ It covers following nine points on which British delegate attempted secure agreement on principles (or “heads of agreement”) at October 21 meeting: (1) duration, (2) consultation, (3) withdrawal troops, (4) number technicians, (5) availability, (6) uniforms, (7) air matters, (8) organization base, and (9) navigation Suez Canal. These are same nine topics covered Cairo’s 488, October 22, and we believe substantially all points made in document already familiar to Department and Embassy Cairo. In general, document takes position consistent with that outlined in Embassy telegram 2603, i.e. there evidently are a number of issues in addition to availability and uniforms on which agreement has not been reached.

Document concludes by pointing out that after announcement of agreement on principles, two sides would start discussing a definite text. Questions of finance and status of technicians would be included in this latter discussion.

Commenting on foregoing, Foreign Office official stated categorically UK has no intention raising any other matters in current talks, besides nine listed above.

In circumstances we do not believe document could usefully serve in promoting action which Department originally had in mind (Department telegram 3133). However, it occurs to us that document might serve as basis for US approach to Egypt along following lines: (1) We convinced British seriously want agreement; (2) we do not believe British will raise any other points, in addition to nine above, in present talks, and (3) since it will probably prove easier to reach agreement on other points than availability and uniforms, Egyptians should try come to agreement with British on other points in effort narrow area disagreement. (We have not, of course, discussed this suggestion with Foreign Office.)

In this connection, reaction of working level of Foreign Office to December 26 meeting (Cairo’s 716) is one of encouragement at willingness Egyptians discuss some of the other issues in addition to uniforms and availability, and at indications considerable agreement still exists on these other matters. British had been fearful that on resumption talks, Egyptians would change their position on some of them.

As regards title of assistant base commander, Foreign Office points out Egyptian delegate prefaced remarks by stating that they accepted idea that technicians were actually soldiers, but that considerations of public opinion made it desirable for technicians to appear to have civilian character to greatest extent possible. Foreign Office, therefore, regards this as essentially question of what title to give assistant base commander and does not anticipate any particular difficulty on this score.

Foreign Office stresses current talks being kept highly secret.

Summarizing present position, official expressed great appreciation for American support. He hoped that with our help Egyptians can be brought to agree to British position on availability. Official remarked UK and Egypt “not very far apart” uniforms and, therefore, he hopeful on this point also.

Embassy believes, however, that undue importance should not be attached to this renewed hint, at Foreign Office working level, that British might possibly make some concession on uniforms if Egyptians meet British position on availability, since Alexander in recent conversation with Embassy Officer indicated he regarded uniforms as more important issue of the two.

Butterworth

1. Repeated to Cairo as telegram 72.
2. Telegram 3133 is printed as telegram 656 to Cairo, Document 1252. None of the other reference telegrams is printed.
3. Not printed; this statement of points agreed and not agreed in the Suez talks as of Oct. 21, 1953, was transmitted to the Department in despatch 2275 from London, Dec. 29. (641.74/12–2953)