780.5/10–1851: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Department of State
niact
1915. Further to Embtel 1891, Oct 17.1 Following are HMG’s views (cleared by PriMin) re further approach to Arab states outlined Depcirtel 357, Oct 16:2
- 1.
- FonOff confirms its desire see two changes contained para 2, Embtel 1891 for reasons stated third para that tel. With respect second change, however, FonOff now goes further and wld prefer delete para 2 (d) altogether on basis it creates too much of an impression we are chasing after states in area and that their attitude may affect our decision re proceeding with MEC. FonOff wld prefer whole tenor of communication to be strong indication our determination go ahead with MEC without exhorting states to cooperate. It thinks such exhortation may boomerang and maintains it knows of no instance when appeal to reason has prevented undesirable actions in Arab League. We have endeavored persuade FonOff that it wld be wise at this juncture to make every effort to persuade Arab states look at whole question rationally rather than emotionally and that we feel this was burden of Dept’s suggested communication. We said we wld agree firmness might be what is required in event we were talking to Egypt, but we are not; we are talking to states where we still have opportunity for rational appeal. We recalled that further explanations in Arab ears at time tripartite declaration had done much prevent precipitate rejection. FonOff unconvinced, however, and feels we must give impression determination to proceed undeterred by any developments in area.
- 2.
- For reasons similar to foregoing, FonOff hopes we wld agree deletion final two sentences para 3, which it regards as indication of weakness when one of strength required. We have argued these two sentences not essentially different from position taken by Bevin in his plan for phased withdrawal from Suez area and that it wld be wisdom on our part to reassure NE states that we do not intend maintain peacetime forces in area forever, but FonOff continues feel strongly that point. It seemed feel, however, there wld be no objection re making oral replies along lines these two sentences in event we were queried by govts concerned, but felt it wld be mistake volunteer it.
- 3.
- FonOff feels different approach required for Jordan, which has already given indication its willingness cooperate. Para 2 (c) in particular raises complications in view treaty and UK supply of Arab [Page 232] Legion. FonOff maintains Jordan is already getting all the aid it requires thru established channels from UK sources and, while FonOff does not want to suggest what we shld say to Jordan Govt, it nevertheless hopes that communication confined points a and b might be found sufficient, with preface taking cognizance of Jordan’s indication of willingness to cooperate.
- 4.
- Re Iraq, UK cld not make communication along lines para 2 (c), since UK has treaty obligation supply Iraq with arms. FonOff did not indicate any objection our speaking along this line, however.
- 5.
- Most UK cld probably say with respect para 2 (c) to Arab States other than Iraq and Jordan wld be statement along lines fourth sentence re coordination of supply and difficulty of justification aid to noncooperative states. Wording has not yet been worked out.
- 6.
- In view fact communications four govts wld probably not be identical in view different treatments para 2 (c), FonOff feels separate approaches preferable. We have urged strongly approaches shld be in order local precedent, but FonOff has not yet reached decision on this point. We suggest, added support on this point by Dept with Brit Amb Washington wld be helpful, as there is still some feeling UK shld go first Iraq and Jordan in view treaty position those two countries.
- 7.
- UK strongly in favor proceeding urgently these approaches, as soon as details worked out four capitals and considers report today that Egypt has called for Arab league polit comite mtg enhances necessity fast action.
- 8.
- FonOff suggests that approaches should be closely followed by simultaneous public announcements in four capitals re four powers’ determination set up MEC.
Tel on foregoing lines being sent Brit Embs Washington, Paris, and Ankara with instructions endeavor coordinate approaches with those countries.
In view fact considerable further coordination apparently necessary, we are not repeating this by tel to NE capitals, but are leaving it Dept’s judgment whether repeat this and Embtel 1891 those missions.
Sent Dept 1915, rptd info Ankara 28, Cairo 62, Paris 761, Jidda, Baghdad, Tehran, Tel Aviv, Amman, Damascus, Beirut unn.