Office of the Historian

974.5301/7–2751: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations1

confidential
Washington, July 30, 1951—8 p. m.

60. Re: Suez; re: Ludlow-Maflfitt telcon.2

[Page 805]

Dept agrees that conversation with Fawzi along lines suggested urtel 153 Jul 273 wld be desirable and useful and suggests you be guided by Deptels 15,4 33,5 42,6 and 527 (Deptel 53 Jul 25).8 We feel that if Fawzi has something specific in mind regarding settlement this problem outside SC, now is the time for him to give details.

Re questions raised by urtel, fol are Dept’s views:

1.
Dept has not recognized that state of war has or does exist between Egypt and Israel and we presume Egyptians understand their allegation of state of war is completely contrary to their obligations under Charter, various SC resolutions on Palestine and Egyptian-Israeli armistice agreements. You are authorized to state this view to Fawzi, but it wld be better not to be drawn into argument over legal technicalities, re state of war and belligerent rights. Dept will forward brief enlarging on this point. While we wld prefer not to discuss this question in SC debate (Deptel 43 para one),9 it may be that point raised in ur question 3 wld require some statement on our part, but it might be limited to general considerations rather than debate re legal theories involved.
2.
Our minimum demand is that restrictions be suspended in toto or alleviated to point of invisibility. Re this, para 4 Deptel 42, Jul 19, shld be useful.
3.
As Fawzi has raised this point of principle in SC, we agree that SC probably cannot remain silent on this point. If, however, as we anticipate, UK draft res is tabled, SC’s opinion on this point cld be expressed through suitable amendment to res.
4.
Since SC is now dealing with issue, we agree with Caffery that his consultations (Cairo 122 Jul 29)10 shld not in any way restrict your conversations with Fawzi. We presume Caffery will continue his conversations if he deems it desirable and it might be your approach to Fawzi wld assist him.

Re ur final recommendation, Egypt Amb is absent from Wash and we doubt that conversation with Counselor wld serve useful purpose. As indicated, Caffery is already fol suggested line with Egypt FonMin who instructs Fawzi.

Our feeling is that for time being and certainly until results of talks with Fawzi are known that US-UK-Fr approach shld be left in abeyance. Additional reason for this is that US, UK and Fr have not yet reached agreement on res or on procedure.

Acheson
  1. Drafted by Messrs. Stabler (NE) and Ludlow (UNP); cleared by Mr. G. L. Jones (NE) and Messrs. Crowe and Hewitt (L); authorized for transmission and signed for the Secretary by Mr. Popper (UNP). Repeated for information to London, Paris, Cairo, and Tel Aviv.↩
  2. Memorandum of telephone conversation not found in Department of State files.↩
  3. Ante, p. 801.↩
  4. The same as telegram 40 to Cairo, July 7, p. 753.↩
  5. The same as telegram 73 to Cairo, July 16, p. 772.↩
  6. The same as telegram 87 to Cairo, July 19, p. 781.↩
  7. The same as telegram 116 to Cairo, July 24, p. 796.↩
  8. Not printed.↩
  9. Dated July 19, p. 783.↩
  10. Supra.↩