85. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Department of State 1
Secto 6. Following uncleared summary Bohlen memo Secretary–Shepilov conversation 3:45 p.m., August 15, in Embassy.2 Pouching cleared text.
After exchange amenities, Shepilov said he wished speak frankly to Secretary concerning difficult task they face this Conference. Secretary replied he welcomed frankness, since he considered that, although there were many difficulties between U.S. and U.S.S.R., he believed they agreed importance avoiding outbreak hostilities in Mid-East or any part of world, since full consequence of armed conflict could not be foreseen.
Shepilov said he agreed entirely on necessity peaceful negotiations. He added Soviet Union came to this Conference with no special interest, having no concessions of economic or other nature in Far3 East and no intention of seeking any. He did not intend argue correctness or incorrectness Egypt’s action or those U.K. and France assessing responsibility for present situation; important thing was to recognize that such situation exists. He said that recent U.S. statements led him believe U.S. had shared view that task here was to decrease tension and find peaceful settlement.
Shepilov stated his government view that under international law and historic precedent Egypt had right to nationalize Canal. He said he was not speaking here as to whether method had been proper or whether a more flexible form could not have been adopted.
The Secretary inquired whether Shepilov meant nationalization of Canal, itself, or of Company. Shepilov said he had Company in mind; that is, its privately-owned stock, assets, equipment, etc. He said denial Egypt’s right nationalize Canal would be interference Egyptian internal affairs and would thereby aggravate situation, since it would arouse resentment not only in Egypt but other countries.
[Page 207]Shepilov said freedom of negotiation [navigation] of Canal was the problem for negotiation. Soviet Government realizes special UK and French interest in Canal. However, Soviet Union also uses Canal and expects increased use. Soviet Government believes economic sanctions, trends military preparations undertaken by UK and France not warranted and would not create necessary atmosphere for sober resolution matter. Some more flexible form must be sought based on reconciling rights Egypt and interests other countries in freedom Canal investigation [navigation?].
Shepilov said Soviets had already set forth disagreement with methods and composition this Conference. They felt composition did not abide by principles concerning signatories 1888 Convention or countries using Canal. He pointed out that without debating merits Egyptian attendance effect was that neither Egypt nor 24 other users of Canal represented London. Soviet Government had serious doubts whether it should come to such Conference, he repeated that task here was not to complicate work of even non-representative Conference but to find proper approach and added that even with present composition Conference could be useful.
Shepilov opined there seemed to be some common ground between US and USSR but certain differences between French and US positions. He said he did not raise this to attempt drive wedge between US, UK and France but that if this opinion true US and USSR together might find way out of this crisis.
Shepilov said that London Conference site not welcomed in East. Further report that UK might preside over talks might under present circumstances complicate situation. He asked if chairman from another country such as India might not have better effect among Eastern nations.
Shepilov said draft proposed procedures4 seemed to him very strict and might have bad reception in certain areas of the world. He concluded by saying that Soviet Delegation would use all efforts to obtain fruitful discussion in calm atmosphere and felt that US was in position also to take calm objective approach. He said he would appreciate Secretary’s views on tasks before Conference.
Secretary said he pleased Soviets had decided to attend Conference, that all his friends and associates did not agree with him and might be surprised to hear him say this. He said Minister had spoken of fact that Soviet Union had come to Conference with no special degree of self-interest. The US had some interests in the area and in the question at issue, if only for reason that U.S.-owned ships were second-largest category using Canal; and that they, [Page 208] therefore, had interests in right of free navigation; however, U.S. did not have same dependency on Canal as U.K. or France and this enabled US to take somewhat calmer view. In this respect, there was to certain degree analogy between U.S. and U.S.S.R. attitudes. He stated that only purpose U.S. was to contribute to solution which while respecting reasonable rights and dignity Egypt as sovereign country would also assure to others exercise free navigation as indicated in 1888 Convention and to that purpose an efficient and fair operation of Canal.
He added that in U.S. there was large degree sympathy for U.K. and French positions, as well as strong feeling that every effort be made to promote peaceful solution, but that if fair and reasonable attempt this direction were rejected U.K. and France would have moral support of U.S. He added that honest people could differ as to what constituted reasonable and just proposal.
Secretary said that right of Egypt to cancel Suez Company concession 12 years before expiration raised serious doubts in U.S., but, as U.S. reserved position this point, he did not believe it profitable now to debate juridical aspects this matter. Secretary stated US purpose here was to find possible reasonable solution respecting rights and interests of both Egypt and U.K./France. He felt this agreed in principle with Shepilov’s statement, namely, the need to reconcile rights of Egypt as sovereign state and interests of other countries vitally concerned in freedom navigation through Canal.
Secretary said that proposal circulated by three Western powers5 was sufficiently flexible to encompass acceptable solution. He added that perhaps the word “authority” sounded worse than it really was (in Russian there is no comparable word for “authority” used in this sense). He said that he believed there could be no universal confidence in Egypt’s ability alone to administer Canal operation. On details of how other participants could share administrative responsibility U.S. had open mind.
Secretary said U.S. completely agreed with U.K. and France they should not be forced rely only on Egyptian promises, which could be circumvented by methods very difficult to rectify by any international body. He did not think that Egypt had demonstrated that operation of Canal would be uninfluenced by its national considerations. He said most difficult aspect of problem was that some countries considered they could rely on Egyptian good will, others could not be expected to place much confidence in what perhaps best described as “ill will”.
[Page 209]Secretary said attempt had been made to make Conference participation both representative and sufficiently limited so as to avoid interminable debate. Secretary outlined three principles on which participating countries had been invited. Secretary expanded explanation basis their invitations. He said that he did not mean to suggest formula perfect. But he wished to assure Minister that it had not been selected arbitrarily or without careful consideration.
As to the work and organization of the conference and, in particular, to Shepilov’s remark re UK Chairman, Secretary said he thought it normal for host government to chair. He added he was aware of the considerations which Shepilov raised and could tell him in strictest confidence that he had taken up matter with UK today but as yet did not know their reply. He added that if UK Foreign Minister felt that normal precedent must be followed US would not oppose nor seek any different result. Shepilov agreed it impolite to question views of inviting country and added that if UK wished chairmanship Soviet Delegation did not intend officially to raise question.
Secretary said he appreciated Shepilov’s point of view and agreed with him on “discourtesy”. Shepilov added that event UK did not wish the chair they might discuss suitable chairman since in many ways he would prefer experienced UK chairman instead of “chudak” (roughly Russian equivalent of “screwball”). If UK did not take chair he suggested Krishna Menon might be suitable. Secretary agreed that if there was to be consideration of chairman other than UK, country and individual should be subject of US–USSR consultation.
In closing, Secretary observed it would be interesting experience to attend Conference at which US and USSR were not principal powers in dispute. He thanked Shepilov for frank presentation and clear outline his views and said that he had tried to be equally frank. Shepilov said he hoped during this conference it would be possible to have additional meetings this nature, to which Secretary agreed.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/8–1656. Secret; Limit Distribution. Received at 12:47 a.m.↩
- The complete text of the memorandum of conversation by Bohlen is ibid., Conference Files: Lot 62 D 181, CF 745. Present at the meeting, which began at 3:45 p.m., August 15, at the U.S. Embassy, were Dulles and Bohlen for the United States and Shepilov and his interpreter Oleg A. Troianovskii for the Soviet Union.↩
- The word “far” is omitted from this sentence in Bohlen’s memorandum of conversation.↩
- Text in telegram 865 from London, August 13, not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/8–1356)↩
- Reference is to the “Proposal for the Establishment of an International Authority for the Suez Canal” transmitted in circular telegram 90, Document 63.↩