Office of the Historian

155. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Lebanon1

Washington,July 12, 1955—7:40 p.m.

64. As appropriate request you inform Foreign Offices of following and convey your and Foreign Office reactions and comments.2

Johnston plans leave US July 28 and open discussions on Arab side. Considerable progress made Washington discussions in clarifying Israel position. Final decision itinerary withheld pending evaluation by Embassy Amman as to desirability Johnston visit Amman to acquaint new cabinet with program and obtain renewed support.3 If visit made Amman, mission would probably begin conversations with Arabs there, follow with brief visit Damascus and conclude at Beirut where would hope Foreign Ministers or other plenipotentiaries could be assembled.

In any event key meeting with Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian and possibly Egyptian ministers probably best held Beirut. Embassy Beirut should express Johnston’s appreciation for expert handling and many courtesies provided in February and inquire whether GOL again prepared take leadership in arranging meeting.4

In ascertaining whether Fawzi able participate, Embassy Cairo may wish refer to brief contact Washington between Fawzi and Johnston mission in which Fawzi’s advice was asked re meeting place and sponsorship.5Fawzi here gave impression Egyptians would [Page 292] be agreeable Beirut. Believe it important Riad attend in view his long standing role as de facto chairman Arab committee. Continue count on Selim’s invaluable participation.

Mission would expect arrive Israel beginning second week August.6

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 120.1580/7–1255. Confidential. Drafted by Troxel; cleared with Burdett,Ludlow, and Barnes; and approved by Burdett. Also sent to Amman, Damascus, Cairo, and Tel Aviv. Repeated to Jidda and Jerusalem, and pouched to London, Baghdad, and Haifa.↩
  2. The Embassy in Damascus reported that Istawani, Director General of the Foreign Office, had raised no objections to Johnston’s itinerary or to Beirut as the site of a meeting. Istawani noted, however, that since the election of a new Syrian President would occur only 10 days or 2 weeks after Johnston’s visit and the proposed Beirut meeting, and the present Cabinet would have to resign when the new President was installed on September 5, it was not in a good position to make a commitment only a month before it left office. (Telegram 39 from Damascus, July 14;Ibid., 120.1580/7–1455)↩
  3. The Embassy in Amman recommended that Johnston should begin his negotiations with Jordan and reported that when the substance of this message was conveyed on July 13 to the Prime Minister, he welcomed Johnston’s visit. (Telegram 19 from Amman, July 14;ibid.)↩
  4. Ambassador Heath conveyed the substance of this message in separate conversations on July 15 with President Chamoun, Foreign Minister Frangie, and Ammoun, Director General of the Foreign Office.Chamoun had no objection to a meeting at Beirut but Frangie argued that Cairo would be more suitable. (Telegram 53 from Beirut, July 15;ibid., 120.1580/7–1555)↩
  5. Byroade reported that he had posed the questions raised in this message to the Acting Foreign Minister, who “stated he certain Egypt desired be helpful but felt any decisions on part of GOE should await Fawzi’s return.” (Telegram 93 from Cairo, July 18;ibid., 120.1580/7–1855)↩
  6. The Embassy in Tel Aviv reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry had raised no objections to this. (Telegram 27 from Tel Aviv, July 15;ibid., 120.1580/7–1555)↩