638. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State1
Delga 276. Verbatim text. Re Palestine/Suez. Hammarskjold passed following note to Barco this morning:
“After further talks with the British, French and Egyptians, I advise definitely against trying to get a GA resolution on Canal settlement. A debate could only confuse an issue which is on the rails, as apparent from especially Selwyn Lloyd’s Monday statement in Parliament.”
Murray (Canada)2 told us this morning Canadians felt it would not be wise to precipitate what could well turn out to be acrimonious debate in GA on Suez settlement. Furthermore, Canadians feel considerable interval should elapse before any action taken in GA looking toward final settlement of Palestine issue. They feel to push Arabs at this stage would defeat our purposes.
On Suez settlement, they felt most advisable leave handling of matter to SYG as continuation talks begun with UK-French and Egyptians in elaboration of six principles. As for Committee of 5 suggested in US draft res on Palestine, Murray felt it would be impossible for any group no matter how restricted to promote settlement. What was needed, in their view, was at most an “advisory committee” working with SYG similar to advisory group in UNEF. He said they were most impressed with effective way this latter group had proceeded and with way it permitted Hammarskjold utilize his talents to fullest in admittedly complex operation.
[Page 1272]Murray referred to forthcoming NATO meeting in Paris, stating Pearson anticipated useful discussions proceeding within and particularly outside NAC meeting.
Lodge feels SYG is on right track and that GA debate should not be allowed interfere. Recommend Secy plan, in his discussions with NATO Fon Mins, to take line that Suez settlement should be left in hands SYG working with immediately interested parties and that no debate ensue for present in GA.