Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1957, Volume XVII

288. Message From Secretary-General Hammarskjöld to Foreign Minister Fawzi¹

New York, April 16, 1957.

1. I refer to my message of 14 April.² Although I am not quite ready with my conclusions, I feel that I should not delay sending my additional observations any further. I am sure you will regard them simply as expressions of personal advice given on the assumption that the government of Egypt is determined to go ahead with their action on the whole as now planned. Without, therefore, for my part accepting the present Egyptian approach, I have tried to make my suggestions so that they should be in line with this approach.

2. The legal character of the declaration.

I note Dr. Fawzi’s comments and would on that basis make the following suggestions:

(A) The text of the declaration, if and when transmitted to the Secretary General, would be presented with a covering letter requesting registration with reference to the final paragraph of the declaration. In the covering letter the government of Egypt would say that the request for registration is under Article 102 of the Charter, as they regard the declaration to be an international instrument as envisaged in that article, the document having been the subject of consultations with various interested governments which have accepted it.

I feel that it would be desirable to use the covering letter also in order to cover the politically very important point that Egypt has not backed down from its acceptance of the Security Council decision of 13 October 1956. I appreciate the reasons why, from the Egyptian point of view, it may be difficult to make a reference to the six requirements in the actual text of the declaration (although I do not share the concern felt in this respect by the Egyptian Government if the reference is only in the preamble). However, I do not see why a reference could not be made in the covering letter, where it would be obvious that it envisages those requirements as interpreted by Egypt. The phraseology in the covering letter might be that the government makes the declaration “in fulfilment of their adherence to the Constantinople Convention of 1888, and noting the resolution of the Security Council of 13 October 1956, etc.”

A covering letter drafted in this way would seem to move the text of the declaration as close to an international treaty as it is possible to do short of formal access to the document by other parties. The reference to the Security Council resolution, in a similar manner, would meet the strong political argument in favour of such a reference to all the extent compatible with Egypt’s wish to maintain its interpretation.

In this context I find that the situation would be much improved if the government of Egypt were to provide for arbitration also regarding the interpretation and application of the declaration. I do not see that, from the Egyptian angle, anything would be lost by accepting such arbitration. On the other hand, such an acceptance in the text of the declaration would definitely mark its character as an instrument under Article 102.I would, therefore, urge the government to reconsider this point and would hope that a positive solution would be found acceptable.

(B) In reply to the covering letter, I would say that I acknowledge receipt of the communication, that I note the references to the Constantinople Convention and the Security Council resolution, that I note the fact that the declaration has been approved by a number of governments consulted, that I note that it will be subject to arbitration, that under these circumstances I will accede to the request of the government of Egypt to have the declaration registered in accordance with Article 102 of the charter, and that the exchange of letters and the declaration will be circulated as General Assembly documents “as the General Assembly may wish to take note of the declaration”. To the statement on registration I would add that this registration “constitutes the declaration, with the obligations therein, as an international instrument as envisaged in Article 102”.

(C) In line with the drafting suggested above in (B) I would, for my part, anticipate that the General Assembly would take note of the exchange of letters and the declaration with whatever phraseology the majority may consider appropriate.

3. Question of cooperation.

I have noted what Dr. Fawzi says in his comments regarding cooperation with representatives of shipping companies. Noting also recent developments in shipping circles, I would strongly recommend that a new sentence be added to paragraph 5 reading as follows: “To that end the government of Egypt would welcome cooperation with representatives of the main shipping interests, designated in such a way as may be found appropriate for the purpose.”

This seems to me to be a minimum. It does not involve an acceptance of government representatives. The text does not necessarily go beyond cooperation with a representation for shipping companies. However, the representation may be so organized as to take care also of “geographical distribution” in a way which would make the representatives spokesmen for the trade without too sharp a definition of their constitutional status (this is not an unusual form of bypassing a conflict between a purely national and a purely private representation).

I would like to go further, as I think that Egypt would gain by spelling out also some of the main functions for the representatives. Somewhat in line with the McCloy paper³ which I have been informed about after his return from Cairo. This would strengthen the point and be a most valuable initial move in the direction of such a cooperation as in its own interest, the authority at all events must sooner or later establish.

4. I would very much hope that the government of Egypt would see its way to endorsing what I have suggested here. It would certainly bring us further towards a desirable reconciliation of interests although obviously it would not satisfy everybody—in fact not even myself for reasons which are well-known to the government as they were fully explained in our talks in Cairo. My preference would be to regard the declaration, even as possibly amended and completed in line with suggestions here, as an interim document pending a true international agreement arrived at through negotiations as soon as circumstances permit such negotiations to be staged in a setting more favourable than the present one. My final suggestion, therefore, would be that the Government of Egypt again considers the possibility of giving expression in appropriate language to the view that the declaration, in this sense, may not be the last word.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 974.7301/4–1657. Confidential. Transmitted to the Department of State in telegram 787 from USUN, April 16, which is the source text. See footnote 8, supra.
2. Not printed; transmitted to the Department of State in telegram 776 from USUN, April 14. See footnote 7, Document 286.
3. McCloy left a memorandum with Nasser during their conversation on April 1. See footnotes 4–8, Document 262.