Office of the Historian

43. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State1

New York, January 28, 1978—8 p.m.

Delga 598. Re: Suez.

1.

Lodge made available substance of Delga 5902 to Hammarskjold in informal memo. SYG promised to study matter carefully.

Hammarskjold said that on Saturday he sent a pointed message to Nasser not to link discussion on basic Suez settlement with Israeli withdrawals, requesting formally that Egypt agree to begin discussions now on Suez settlement.

He informed us that on January 24 all British and French clearance units had left Port Said area.

2.
In discussing possible tactics in GA re his report on withdrawals SYG said he himself could not take initiative regarding res. SYG believed that fact Arab-Asians have not taken initiative re sanctions res showed a will towards negotiation on part of Egypt. He believes that initiative through UNEF advisory committee states and several others would be good way proceed since it would have appearance of “UN initiative” and therefore be easier for Egyptians to accept. It was left that US would seek to work out draft res or resolutions, and Hammarskjold would then call advisory committee group and others together. Hammarskjold agreed meeting should focus on draft worked out by us in first instance and then made available to several members of committee who could carry forward. Hammarskjold thought control by us and himself important; that Engen (Norway) would probably be good man to put things forward at the advisory committee stage.
3.
Spender (Australia) informed Lodge Australia believes that res contained in Delga 590 which spells out specific steps which should be taken with respect to Sharm el-Sheikh and Gaza is minimum from Australia’s point of view. Should a res along these lines not be submitted, Spender would feel obligated to put in such a res to amend it to go along with ideas which he suggested in GA.
4.
Following Lodge discussion with Fawzi, Pearson, and SYG we drafted following two resolutions to obtain Fawzi’s reactions. Lodge gave these resolutions to Fawzi this afternoon. Resolutions follow:

I. “The GA,

“Recalling its resolutions of November 2, 4, 5, 7, 25, 1956 and January 19, 1957,

[Page 68]

“Deplores the non-compliance of Israel to withdraw all of its forces behind the armistice line despite the repeated requests of the GA,

“Calls upon Israel to complete the withdrawal of its armed forces behind the armistice line without further delay.”

II. “The GA,

“Having received the report of the SYG of January 24, 1957 (A/3512),

“Recognizing that withdrawal of forces must be followed by action which woula assure progress towards the creation of peaceful conditions in the region,

  • “(1) Notes with appreciation the SYG’s report and approves the recommendations and measures proposed by the SYG therein, to be carried out upon the withdrawal of Israeli forces;
  • “(2) Calls upon the governments of Egypt and Israel scrupulously to observe the provisions of the 1949 Armistice Agreement; and accordingly
  • “(3) Urges that, subject to final determination of the legal status of the Gulf of Aqaba by recourse to the International Court of Justice or otherwise, the parties to the Armistice Agreement refrain from asserting or exercising any belligerent rights in these waters, or from interfering in any way with the right of innocent passage therein;
  • “(4) Urges all members to observe and respect the recommendations and measures contained in the SYG’s report and to extend their full cooperation in giving them effect;
  • “(5) Requests the SYG to report as appropriate to the GA.”

Lodge explained that he wished to have Fawzi’s reaction to resolutions on understanding that resolutions would be put to vote successfully without interval.

Fawzi had several preliminary reactions. He said that SYG did not want his report approved. In response to this statement, we pointed out that paragraph 1 notes with appreciation SYG’s report, and that it is recommendations and measures in report, not entire report, which are approved. Fawzi then said that paragraphs 1 and 4 in effect meant approval of SYG’s report. Fawzi asked us to confirm whether our resolution meant that UNEF would move into Sharm el-Sheikh and Egypt would be expected not to interfere with Israeli shipment. Lodge responded affirmatively. Fawzi also emphasized that the adoption of these two resolutions together would mean that Egypt and UN were “putting in the laps of Israel something which Israel wants while the aggression is being maintained.” Lodge pointed out that while two resolutions would be expected to be voted upon one after another, that recommendations and measures contained in our second resolution would not go into effect until Israeli forces were withdrawn.

In closing Fawzi said these were only preliminary reactions and he would consult with Cairo.

Lodge
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/1–2857. Confidential; Priority. Received at 9:16 a.m.↩
  2. Document 39.↩