Office of the Historian

300. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission at the United Nations1

Washington, April 24, 1957—9:42 a.m.

821. Re Suez (813).2 Re numbered paragraph 3, Department believes that manner in which Egypt intends make reference to six requirements in covering letter is objectionable.3 Phrase “Noting their [Page 570] understanding of the Security Council resolution of 13 October 1956 and in line with their statements relating to it before the Council” distorts impact of SC resolution of October 31. We believe SC resolution could not be modified by interpretation which single government such as Egypt might seek to place upon it. Moreover, mere notation of six requirements, in our view, falls far short statement that declaration is made “in accordance with” or “in elaboration of” the six requirements approved by the Security Council.

Request USUN ask SYG if he does not believe above point should be made to Fawzi when he replies to Egyptian comments on his suggestions.4

American Embassy Cairo at its discretion should seek appropriate occasion, if possible, to inform GOE our views.5

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/4–2257. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Sisco, Shaw, and Meeker and approved by Rountree who signed for Dulles. Also sent Niact to Cairo.↩
  2. Document 298.↩
  3. At 9:05 a.m. on April 23, Dulles telephoned Rountree to discuss Fawzi’s recent message to Hammarskjöld. Their conversation, as transcribed by Bernau, went as follows: “The Sec. said he notes the suggestion the Egyptians are making re noting their interpretation of the six requirements and the Sec. thinks it makes it worse. That would mean if anybody accepts the declaration they have to accept the interpretation. R. could not see how it would help to have Egypt imply it is in line with the 6 principles—if it is not it is better not to say. The Sec thinks if R. wants to convey his thought to Hare he would do it. R. will.” (Eisenhower Library, Dulles Papers, General Telephone Conversations)↩
  4. Telegram 823 from USUN, April 24, reported that Lodge relayed the U.S. position on this matter to Cordier who promised to speak with Hammarskjöld about it, although it was probably too late to affect the text of the Egyptian declaration. (Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/4–2457)↩

  5. Telegram 3342 from Cairo, April 24 reported Fawzi’s reaction to these views. Fawzi replied that the communication to Hammarskjöld had already been sent and that the language to which the Department of State objected was in accord with Hammarskjöld’s specific suggestions. (Ibid.)

    On April 24 in New York, the Government of Egypt transmitted the text of its Declaration to Secretary-General Hammarskjöld under cover of a letter from Foreign Minister Fawzi, which among other points announced the reopening of the Suez Canal. The text of Fawzi’s letter and the attached declaration were circulated as U. N. doc. A/ 3576 (S/3817) on April 24. The text is printed in United States Policy in the Middle East, September 1956–June 1957, pp. 386-390, and Department of State Bulletin, May 13, 1957, pp. 776-778.

    ↩