Office of the Historian

293. Telegram From the Embassy in Egypt to the Department of State1

Cairo, April 21, 1957—6 p.m.

3310. Despite repeated Niact requests service, second section Deptel 34752 only received this morning. Saw Fawzi this afternoon and went over fully. He responded by giving main points in reply to SYG letters April 16 and 17,3 as well as commenting on points Department had raised re GOE draft. Following is account thereof in order of mention in reference telegram message:

(1)
Re necessity proceed as fast as possible, Fawzi said SYG had made same point and GOE in entire agreement. He said he couldn’t be specific re issuance declaration but working very hard to get out as soon as possible. (Note: Only fair to say that, bearing in mind complexity of problem and fact this is period of Ramadan fast, work on declaration has moved along at good pace). As regards reference to SC, Fawzi said all he could do was repeat previous observation that it would be most ill advised to do so at just this time. He did not say this because of fear of having matter aired but fear that practical progress would be sacrificed. In so saying, he made no threats but did speak with great solemnity and I believe, sincerity.
(2)
Re registration, Fawzi said had personally studied and sought best available legal advice and was sure that, by virtue of both its content and form, declaration would qualify as international document. This will be done not only by seeking registration with UN but also by communicating to practically every government of world as a binding commitment. Would be easy for GOE to get agreement of many countries and doubtless many will do so but putting emphasis on that angle more likely to weaken than to strengthen declaration. Seemed somewhat strange that GOE seeking so clearly commit itself but being rebuffed.
(3)
Re 6 principles: SYG being told GOE prepared put in covering letter sentence reading as follows: “The GOE make this declaration in fulfillment of their participation in the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and noting their understanding of the SC resolution of October 13, 1956, and their statements relating to it before the SC.” Fawzi said he regarded this as being entirely in accord with SYG suggestion and [Page 560] also partly with our own. He emphasized that it had been difficult for him and Nasser to make this change and much more difficult to convince other members of government.
(4)
Re cooperation with users, GOE had accepted SYG resolution in principle but re-worded to read “Egypt will welcome and encourage cooperation between the Suez Canal authority and representatives of shipping and trade”. Fawzi added he didn’t think necessary repeat point which both he and Nasser had so consistently emphasized to effect that GOE looks forward to full cooperation with users not only in order to be sure of having satisfied customers but also as being in Egypt’s own interest.
(5)
Re interim character of declaration, Fawzi said felt would be mistake to say either temporary or final. To do first, would inject element of weakness and start off on wrong foot. To say final would be unrealistic, since any such document obviously possible improve and should do so as circumstances indicate; better say nothing at this point.
(6)
SYG’s suggestion re GA taking note of declaration was not discussed beyond point of taking cognizance it raised question.
(7)
Re paragraph 3 (B) Fawzi noted extent to which disputes and differences covered in 3 (A) and 8. However, GOE had attempted strengthen 3 (B) by rephrasing as follows: “3 (B) As regards differences arising between the parties to the said copy in respect of the interpretation or the applicability of its provisions, if not otherwise resolved, the government of Egypt will take the necessary steps in order to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in conformity with the provisions of Article 36 of its statute or, by agreement, to an appropriate organ of the UN”.
(8)
Re tolls, Fawzi took notes (as he also did on all other points) but made no specific comment.
(9)
Re changes in Canal code, Fawzi said disappointed that very real efforts which GOE had made to strengthen this paragraph apparently overlooked or unappreciated.
(10)
Re 8 (B) Fawzi said no reason have any fears. When GOE talked of arbitration it meant real arbitration which neither side could block.
(11)
Re fact paragraph 9 refers to agreement and arbitration but not to litigation, Fawzi said had assumed e.g. [Egyptian] draft adequate and not clear why question litigation raised or complications which it might involve. However, if we could advise him in more detail and urgently on this point he would reconsider.

In conclusion, Fawzi made plea for understanding of degree to which GOE has gone in revising declaration and difficulty which it has encountered in so doing. “You have stretched us very far,” he said with wry smile. “Please be careful not to stretch us too far or something [Page 561] may break.” He is, I am convinced, making gallant fight in this matter, not only because of professional responsibility but because he sees reasonable canal settlement as possibly turning tide in Egypt’s drift away from West.

Assume USUN will have access to Fawzi’s reply to SYG and will be able check any supplement foregoing.

Hare
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/4–2157. Confidential; Priority. Received at 5:51 p.m.↩
  2. Document 291.↩
  3. Reference is presumably to Hammarskjöld’s two messages to Fawzi on April 16. See Document 288 and footnote 3, Document 291.↩