Office of the Historian

274. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Egypt1

Washington, April 7, 1957—9:01 p.m.

3332. While UK and French Governments have been disposed thus far to support US efforts in current Suez discussions with Nasser, both express deep concern re time element in view Canal opening. They are pressing for immediate decision to bring matter to SC, assuming Egypt does not promptly indicate to US its willingness undertake arrangements consistent with six principles.

Although we had hoped your current discussions with GOE might disclose prospects for early satisfactory settlement without recourse to UN, doubtful that we should long continue in our present role. Important consideration is that any arrangements which we might explicitly or implicitly agree with GOE to support and which would fall short of six principles might be strenuously objected to by UK, France and other users (public if not Governments), and US charged with capitulating to Nasser. Even though we might ourselves be convinced that arrangements were best obtainable, effect upon relations with our allies might be grave.

After discussing present situation with UK Ambassador in foregoing context, and on basis current reports your talks, Secretary today suggested Caccia immediately consult with Foreign Office to ascertain British views as to whether US should continue negotiations with Nasser, perhaps on a more formal basis than at present, or whether US should now bring matter to the SC.2 Our thinking is that it would be better for US to take initiative in SC than UK or France. US might report to SC either unilaterally or on the basis of an approach agreed with Egypt, in which case our respective positions would be set forth.

Our thought is that we would not wish to take matter to SC in hostile mood, but as a normal procedure on basis that efforts had been made without success to implement the October 13 Resolution. Initiative by US would be based on facts that Secretary, during past Council meeting on matter, stated assumption that Council would remain seized of problem; US had recently been invited by Egypt to comment upon Egyptian draft memorandum, which it had done in series discussions with GOE; GOE had not seen fit make amendments essential to comply with six principles; Canal is being opened for shipping; since [Page 526] matter not otherwise resolved in accordance with SC Resolution, subject should again be discussed to determine how negotiations might be brought about.

Would appreciate your comments on foregoing soonest, if possible by return telegram. UK comments expected Monday afternoon3 Washington time. Same suggestions which Secretary put to Caccia were subsequently made to French Ambassador today with request he consult his Government too.4 Meanwhile, separate message containing comments upon your last reports on talks with GOE being withheld pending report from you, British and French.

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/4–757. Secret; Niact. Drafted by Rountree; cleared by Jones; and approved by Shaw who initialed for Dulles. Repeated to London and Paris.↩
  2. No memorandum of the conversation has been found in Department of State files.↩
  3. April 8.↩
  4. A memorandum of the conversation by Dillon is in Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/4–757.↩