Office of the Historian

227. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Department of State1

London, September 18, 1956—11 p.m.

Secto 5. Secretary met with Lloyd and Pineau noon today2 to discuss agenda for Conference. It agreed that item one (discussion Menzies’ report3) would pose no problem, though there should be opportunity for questions, and that Henderson would attempt obtain agreement other members Menzies’ Committee to invite Spender join other four members of Committee and to select spokesman for Committee at Conference.

Lloyd suggested item of agenda (response to be made to Egyptian note4) should follow discussion item three (formation users’ association) as he feared item two might precipitate long discussion.

Pineau said he thought Egyptian note proposed second conference whereas Secretary and Lloyd thought note merely asked for discussions on how set up negotiation group. Secretary added he felt Egyptian proposal aimed at reviving Soviet idea of small negotiating group.

Secretary referred to Hammarskjold’s memo5 which had just received and Lloyd agreed his estimate that Hammarskjold proposal better than Egyptian, Pineau said he had not yet seen Hammarskjold’s proposal. Secretary said while he hoped Conference would reject Egyptian initiative he felt Hammarskjold’s proposal could be taken up at same time users’ association was beginning function. He suggested Hammarskjold might in effect be intermediary to bring about acceptance of users’ association by Egypt. He felt that when users’ association was established it should be agreed take it immediately [Page 512] to Security Council and perhaps also obtain advisory opinion in World Court re our rights under 1888 Treaty. He added this represented his preliminary thinking. Lloyd said he wary of letting Hammarskjold moderate as free agent but all three agreed he could serve useful purpose if his operations were limited. Lloyd said he felt strongly users’ association should be discussed first and we should state simultaneously that we would go to Security Council when users’ association was set up. He felt such statement would help obtain greater support for users’ association. Secretary expressed opinion agenda should remain as stated in British invitation but after some discussion it was agreed items three and two would be reversed provided the other countries agreed.

Secretary said he must leave Thursday6 but would leave Phleger and Henderson behind to settle technical details of setting up users’ association. Secretary then tabled preliminary draft reply to Egyptian note (Secto 6)7 and it was agreed this draft would be circulated and discussed at afternoon Tripartite meeting.

Re chairmanship of Conference, it was agreed Pineau would nominate Lloyd and Secretary would second nominations.

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/9–1856. Secret. Drafted by Mak. Received at 9:24 p.m. Repeated to Paris.↩
  2. Dulles and his party arrived in London at 9:25 p.m., September 18. (Secto 1 from London, September 18; ibid.) A memorandum of the noon conversation, prepared by the Delegation to the Second Suez Canal Conference, is ibid., Conference Files: Lot 62 D 181, CF 779. The conversation took place at the British Foreign Office.↩
  3. For text of the Menzies report, see The Suez Canal Problem, July 26–September 22, 1956, pp. 323–326.↩
  4. Reference is to an Egyptian memorandum forwarding the text of Nasser’s September 10 statement to the Department of State. Regarding Nasser’s statement, see footnote 4, Document 200.↩
  5. Reference is presumably to a paper which Hammarskjöld delivered to the U.S. Mission in New York at noon on September 14. In it, he proposed that the matter be brought before the Security Council under Article 37 of the U.N. Charter, with the aim of asking the Security Council to invite a restricted number of nations to set up a committee on the Suez question. The committee would then explore the ways and means to achieve the objectives mentioned in the Egyptian Declaration of September 10. (Telegram 212 from USUN, September 14; Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/9–1456)↩
  6. September 20.↩
  7. In this draft reply, the U.S. Government acknowledged receipt of the Egyptian memorandum of September 10, but rejected its proposal for the formation of a negotiating body which would be representative of different views held among states using the Suez Canal. The U.S. Government noted that the members of the first Suez Canal Conference had rejected a similar proposal put forward by the Soviet Union and expressed its doubt as to the practicality of negotiating simultaneously with all countries which had an interest in the Canal. The reply closed with the assertion that the Eighteen-Power Proposals, and not the Egyptian proposal, furnished the basis for further discussions and negotiations looking toward fair and equitable settlement of the Suez Canal problem. (Secto 6 from London, September 18; Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/9–1856)↩