Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

641.74/10–3051: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Department of State ¹

secret

London, October 30, 1951—7 p. m.

2094. Eden’s² first action re Egypt will probably be considered policy statement which FonOff now drafting and which if approved will be sent as instruction to Stevenson. It wld be brief and main object wld be set general course from which future decisions wld flow. It will undoubtedly confirm Brit stand to date. FonOff intends inform Dept fully.

In discussing Dept’s concern re fuel oil shipments and sending Haifa tankers thru canal, FonOff this afternoon said UK wld of course keep these points fully in mind. It doubted action on either was early prospect, but particularly re former said UK was understandably not in very charitable mood toward Egypt since Min Interior seemed to be doing nothing to make good his promises there wld be no intimidations [garble] or interference with essential supplies for Brit troops. Govt’s practice seems to be just the opposite and furthermore terrorist grps are making way to canal zone with at least connivance of govt.

FonOff hopes Sudan commission’s appeal to UN will die on vine but recognizes that if internatl interest in Sudan is stirred up UK may have new problem to consider. FonOff definitely dislikes idea of UN comm sticking its nose into Sudan and thinks Sudanese wld be best advised to get on with present program leading to self-govt.³

Gifford

1. Repeated to Cairo.
2. Anthony Eden had replaced Morrison as British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Churchill government as a result of the general elections of October 25.
3. In telegram 614, niact, from Cairo of October 31, Caffery informed the Secretary, inter alia, that Stevenson had reported the situation in the canal zone was “deteriorating daily” because of an increasing exodus of Egyptian labor and the fact that “Brit mil have again virtually turned off tap” in order to force the Egyptian Government to do something about getting the workers back on the job. Caffery added that he was not encouraged by London’s attitude as reported in the source text. “Brit have in mind number of drastic reprisals in zone and I will go along with them as I have gone always in past but I can not go along with an action which if carried out will end only in reoccupation and revolution.” (641.74/10–3151)