52. Editorial Note
At the plenary tripartite meeting held on the afternoon of August 2 (see supra) French Foreign Minister Pineau tabled a suggested protocol. A rough translation of its text, transmitted to the Department of State, reads as follows:
- “1. As the result of their discussions the Foreign Ministers of the United States, France and the United Kingdom have decided that the Conference which will be convened on the — August, 1956 to consider the future of the Suez Canal will be required to: (A) discover whether the majority of its members accept the seizure by Egypt of the Canal or whether, on the contrary they intend to place this international waterway under the control of an international management for an indefinite period; (B) if, as seems probable, the Conference decides to place the Canal under the control of an international management, to draw up the general framework by which such management would be put into effect.
- “2. The Foreign Ministers have decided that if the results of the Conference are positive Egypt will be required to accept the proposals that will be put to her.
- “3. The Foreign Ministers have similarly agreed, if Egypt accepts these proposals, to invite the governments participating in the Conference to take note of her agreement and to undertake without delay the detailed study of the modalities of the international organization which has been agreed in principle.
- “4. Finally, the Foreign Ministers are agreed that, if Egypt should refuse the proposal which will be put to her, each of the three Governments should be free to take whatever action it judges appropriate.” (Telegram 649 from London; Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–LO/8–356)
During the discussion that followed, Secretary Dulles read the following statement:
“The United States joins in the program outlined in the communiqué (tripartite statement) on the assumption that it represents, and will be implemented as, a genuine effort to enable relevant free world opinion to express its views on the subject of international operation of the Suez Canal as required, under the circumstances, to give assured effect to the internationalizing Convention of 1888. We believe that if such opinion impressively calls for such international operation, then the Egyptian Government would either accept such a solution or, in rejecting it, be morally isolated.
“This procedure requires, on the part of the three powers meeting here, a respect for the opinions of the governments of other free world nations that are themselves deeply concerned. Therefore, these others should have a reasonable opportunity to formulate and express their views. This should preferably be done through diplomatic channels prior to the Conference, so that the Conference itself will not be prolonged and controversial. We hope, and think it desirable, that the Conference be concluded within a week. With this in mind, we would cooperate to secure advance agreement of appropriate rules of procedure.
“The United States will also cooperate with France and the UK to make clear that it favors the international solution here outlined which protects those who use and depend on the Canal and which is fair to Egypt.
“We hope and will seek that the Conference will assure an acceptable solution. But if, unfortunately, the results of the program here agreed to are negative, that would create a new situation, to be dealt with in the light of the then circumstances without prior commitment.” (Telegram 652 from London; ibid.)