Office of the Historian

303. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to All Diplomatic Missions1

Washington, April 27, 1957—12:20 p.m.

866. Joint State–USIA Message. Amb. Lodge speech in SC outlines US position on Egyptian Declaration on Suez Canal.2

FYI: (1) We should avoid endorsing Egyptian declaration or expressing gratification at its publication. Similarly, while making clear declaration does not meet the six requirements of the Security Council, we do not now attack Egypt for inadequacies, indicating rather a wait-and-see attitude. (2) We believe strident criticism of declaration from other sources does not contribute to progress in resolving problem. We therefore do not associate US with such criticism. (3) We do not acquiesce in suggestion, contained in Egyptian Foreign Minister’s letter to UNSYG transmitting Egyptian Declaration, that Egypt solely qualified to interpret 6 principles. End FYI.

Public position includes following elements:

1.
Fulfilment six requirements, as indicated in Lodge statement continue to stand.
2.
Egyptian declaration does not fully meet these requirements.
3.
US prepared, nevertheless, to try out system proposed by GOE.
4.
Confidence of users will depend on manner in which declaration implemented.
5.
rending outcome, US reserves its right to comment further.
6.
Toll payments by US flagships must be made “under protest” to avoid double jeopardy. GOE and Canal Company balances held in US at time of nationalization of Canal Company will continue blocked pending resolution double jeopardy problem.

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/4–2757. Confidential.↩
  2. The Security Council discussed the Suez Canal item at its 776th and 777th meetings on April 26. (U.N. docs. S/PV.776 and S/PV.777) For text of Lodge’s statement made during the 776th meeting, see Department of State Bulletin, May 13, 1957, pp. 775–776, and United States Policy in the Middle East, September 1956–June 1957, pp. 390–392. The Security Council remained seized of the issue without a date being set for a resumption of discussion.↩