263. Telegram From the Embassy in Egypt to the Department of State1
3103. Embtel 3083.2Fawzi asked me call at 12:30 today to give reaction to our suggestions on canal memo. Said appreciated promptness [Page 503] and thoroughness of US reply and that it had been studied carefully together with views received from other governments such as India and Yugoslavia.
Re US suggestions some had been found acceptable such as heading as declaration rather than memorandum and treating first three clauses outside declaration proper. However, there had been some of our suggestions which GOE had found difficult accept and he mentioned following:
- 1.
- Six points: We knew of problem here involved because of various interpretations. Fawzi said his own interpretation had clearly been expressed in SC session of October 13 when he had termed six points vague and unfortunately worded and had expressed opinion best way to meet was to provide specific substantive provisions to carry ideas into effect. He wanted emphasize GOE not going back on anything but it was necessary act so as have clarity, not misunderstanding. In his opinion, declaration which Egypt intends making will in fact provide the guarantees which might reasonably be envisaged under six points and Hammarskjöld letter. He remained obdurate to all argument on this point.
- 2.
- Adherence: Fawzi reiterated at length previous arguments in this regard, emphasizing that GOE in no sense proposing declaration which could be altered at will. Should Egypt in fact be so misguided in light of own best interests as to make unwarranted changes it would be answerable to both individual countries to whom declaration would be communicated and to UN with which declaration would be registered. It would also lay itself open to recourse either in UN or ICJ. However, after having out this argument at length, Fawzi admitted that main objection to idea of general adherence was Israel and he felt there would be no difficulty in agreeing to adherence if that problem could be met.
- 3.
- Improvements: GOE felt that US draft would have effect of giving outsiders veto in matter of programs. Helpful advice was welcome but GOE unable be bound by outside decisions.
Fawzi said Egypt declaration would have been made in day or two in order give necessary advance notice before Canal fully opened on April 10. He wished point out, however, that doors would be left open for “improving, finalizing and giving finishing touches”. I asked if this then meant that proposed declaration would be draft subject to further discussion. Fawzi said “no”; what he had meant was that declaration would be in final form but would lend itself to elaboration in implementation. I said, in that case, assumed three subjects mentioned above would not be open to further negotiation after declaration issued. Fawzi acknowledged this the case.
I then expressed great concern that matter which had been considered so fully and over such long time should now be rushed to hectic conclusion which could only lead to future difficulty. In message I had delivered on March 31 USG had said it prepared discuss. Now we were being given notification which would put summary end [Page 504] to discussion. In circumstances, I must request that door not thus be closed and specifically that I at least be given opportunity for one further exchange with Department in firm of assurance that declaration would not be issued before 48 hours. Fawzi said much pressure being exerted on him and that he doubted if he could hold off so long but he thought he could possibly do so for 36 hours.
Comment: It now seems that despite efforts of Hammarskjöld defer final decision, our own strong representations on March 31 and McCloy’s robust efforts with Nasser and Fawzi yesterday,3GOE has now decided to take bit in teeth and take final action, possibly in fear of having face mounting complication as dissenting views come in but possibly also with encouragement from non-Western sources.
Believe that in order have any prospect of effect, I should have instructions from Department by tomorrow morning.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/4–257. Confidential; Niact. Received at 3:18 p.m. Also sent to USUN.↩
- See footnote 2, supra.↩
- See telegram 3093, supra.↩