507. Telegram From the Embassy in France to the Department of State 1
2184. I saw Joxe this morning and informed him regarding United States resolution on Suez in accordance with Department telegram 1688.2 I told him that in my personal view, while I could see some points to which French might well object in resolution,3 I did not feel that text of resolution as a whole seemed as bad as Joxe thought on Saturday night.
Joxe, who was calm but obviously suffering from lack of sleep, told me that French objection had been both a procedural one and an objection on substance of resolution. He said that French had been disturbed Saturday4 morning when Lodge introduced in Security Council a resolution on Hungary without prior consultation with French. French had understood that there was solid agreement that measures regarding Hungary would only be taken after tripartite consultation, and they had been very much upset by United States unilateral action. They had felt that United States resolution was unduly soft and had wanted to submit strengthening amendments. However, French Delegation at United Nations recommended against such action so as not to air difference with Lodge over this subject in view of open differences on Suez problem.
French had understood that American United Nations Delegation was preparing some action for Saturday night which would have effect of heading off more drastic action which might have been presented by Arab-Asians or Soviets. They were however very much upset when they received word of our resolution on Suez. [Page 997] They felt that resolution gave a great deal too much authority to Committee of Three and result would depend entirely on who were chosen as members of this Committee. They particularly objected to the naming of French and United Kingdom along with Egypt as countries to be consulted. They felt that this in effect classified them with Egypt, a position which they obviously could never agree to. Joxe likened their position to that of a joint defendant at the bar. Finally, they felt that resolution in effect sounded the death knell of any plan for international administration of the Canal.
I told Joxe that I did not agree as far as international administration was concerned, and saw no reason why that might not be the best solution in accordance with the 6 principles adopted by Security Council October 13. Joxe agreed that this might be so but felt that if it was our intention to consider international administration it would be better to so indicate in the framework of resolution.
I then told Joxe that since the resolution had already been submitted and was before the General Assembly it would seem to me that if it was to be modified it would be very helpful if we could have French views promptly on possible specific modifications or alternatives, or at any rate could have a clear explanation of items to which they particularly objected. Joxe agreed that this was an excellent idea and said he would take matter up with Pineau as soon as Pineau arrived. Pineau is not expected at his office until about 2 o’clock this afternoon. Joxe said he would try and get in touch with me later this afternoon on this subject.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 320.5780/11–556. Secret; Priority. Received at 2:05 p.m. Repeated to USUN.↩
- Telegram 1688 to Paris, November 4, instructed the Embassy that it might inform Joxe that the United States was not pressing for its two draft resolutions, submitted to the General Assembly on November 3. (Ibid., 974.7301/11–356)↩
- Reference is to the U.S. draft resolution concerning the Suez Canal. Regarding French objections, see Delga 2, Document 487.↩
- November 3.↩