58. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State1
Delga 651. Re Israeli withdrawals; Suez. In meeting this morning Hammarskjold said it was important that we continue to keep each other well informed particularly during this next difficult phase. Hammarskjold also thanked Lodge for fine manner in which US handled resolutions. Hammarskjold then described in detail his plans for next few days. He would meet with Eban at 3:30 p.m. today. He believes this is matter of utmost gravity and GA is deeply involved. Hammarskjold [Page 92] plans to conduct discussions with parties while keeping closest contact with advisory committee in order “to continue to bring General Assembly to bear on this matter”. Use of advisory committee, in Hammarskjold’s view, is another device for helping to “carry with us” India.
Hammarskjold would tell Eban this afternoon that from now on discussions should be “record discussions”, and it would be his intention to make them public in future reports. Hammarskjold said there had been entirely too much “slipperiness”, and he hoped to avoid this by making it clear that discussions are “on the record”. He intends to ask advisory committee to assign one of its members to sit with him in discussions. He has asked Engen (Norway) who left for Oslo Sunday and is checking this with Lange. Hammarskjold wants Engen chosen by advisory committee since he is very sound and Norway is considered pretty much of neutral as far as Israel is concerned.
He expected Eban to insist first on discussing measures envisaged under Resolution II. Hammarskjold said that he felt obliged in first instance to ask for clear-cut declaration by Israel as to what it intends to do regarding implementation of first resolution. He would tell Israelis that intention of sponsors of second resolution is that UNEF should be deployed in Sharm el-Sheikh but at same time that this is subject to consent of Egypt. He expected Eban to say that unless Egypt agrees to stationing UNEF in Sharm el-Sheikh, Israelis will not pull out. While stating that it is intention of second resolution to get UNEF in Sharm el-Sheikh area, Secretary General would ask Israelis as matter of principle to agree that they will accept UNEF on both sides of demarcation line and recognize that complete Israeli withdrawal includes withdrawal of its civil administration in Gaza.
Hammarskjold also intends to use advisory committee on Suez settlement matter. Subcommittee of Lall (India), Engen (Norway) and Freitas-Valle2 (Brazil) has been appointed and this subcommittee will be brought into discussions, though Hammarskjold did not state precisely how this would be done.
Hammarskjold said that he had received message from Nasser indicating Egyptian willingness to accept a formula which will “avoid collision”. Provided tolls are legally paid to Egypt, Egyptians will accept any conditions on them. In this connection, Hammarskjold mentioned his idea of suspense account (legal payment to Egypt, but blocked pending settlement). In describing French position Hammarskjold said they do not agree tolls should be paid legally to Egypt. Even though such payment to Egypt could be placed in blocked account pending final settlement, French are opposed. Hammarskjold [Page 93] said French want tolls paid to an international agency (not Egypt) on understanding that question of to whom toll money belongs is subject to future determination.
Hammarskjold said that Egypt has now linked question of Suez settlement discussions with withdrawal of Israeli forces. Nasser has now replied formally to Secretary General’s letter of January 20 stating Egyptian willingness to begin formal conversations immediately upon full withdrawal of Israeli forces. Hammarskjold said Nasser has not linked Suez settlement talks with clearance of Canal, traffic through Canal or deployment of UNEF in Sharm el-Sheikh.
We inquired as to Hammarskjold’s plans regarding trip to Cairo. Hammarskjold said under present circumstances he could not go to Cairo. Hammarskjold said he cannot go to Cairo unless Israelis withdraw or he has an advance commitment this will be done. He said Eban has stressed that it is essential for negotiations to take place in Jerusalem. SYG said he will not go to Jerusalem unless Israelis give commitment to comply with Resolution I. He said he would be willing to go to Jerusalem to negotiate substance of Resolution II once Resolution I had been complied with.
Hammarskjold added as footnote at conclusion of discussion that during course of negotiations with parties he intends test idea of observers in Sharm el-Sheikh as stated in his last report.
When Hammarskjold was informed that Fawzi is pressing for another GA meeting on Wednesday to consider question of Israeli withdrawal, Hammarskjold expressed concern and felt this was ominous and threatening.
This evening Cordier informed us Eban had generally taken line SYG earlier anticipated. In handing SYG aide-mémoire (reported in Delga 652)3Eban requested assurances re measures called for by sponsors of second resolution before Israel could withdraw. Eban urged Hammarskjold take up matters under Resolution II directly with Ben Gurion. According Cordier, SYG stated he could not do so until Israel agreed withdraw. Cordier said Eban told Hammarskjold he [Page 94] would provide him with a “supplementary interpretation” Tuesday.4Eban mentioned to Hammarskjold receipt President’s letter to Ben Gurion, and that they (Israelis) “were gratified” at part of letter dealing with Sharm el-Sheikh.
Cordier expressed view it will now be difficult avoid extreme measures. He informed us Fawzi has made formal request for GA meeting to consider Israeli compliance. Letter did not specify date, but requested “earliest possible” meeting. Cordier is holding up circulation Fawzi letter pending SYG-Fawzi discussion this and other matters Tuesday.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/2–457. Secret; Priority. Received at 9:20 p.m.↩
- Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations.↩
- Not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/2–457) In its Aide-Mémoire of February 4, the Israeli Government requested the Secretary-General to ask the Egyptian Government whether Egypt agreed to the mutual and full abstention from belligerent acts by land, air, and sea, upon withdrawal of Israeli troops. The Aide-Mémoire also requested clarification from the Secretary-General as to whether upon withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Sharm al Sheikh area, units of UNEF would be stationed along the western shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to act as a restraint against hostile acts. On February 5 in a letter to the Secretary-General, Eban emphasized the importance of these questions and noted that an affirmative response from the Egyptian Government would affect Israel’s policies on outstanding issues. Hammarskjöld subsequently released the text of the Israeli Aide-Mémoire and the Eban letter of February 5 as Annexes I and II to the Secretary-General’s Report of February 11. (U.N. doc. A/ 3527) For texts of the two documents, see United States Policy in the Middle East, September 1956–June 1957, pp. 277-279.↩
- February 5.↩