Office of the Historian

974.5301/1–2854

No. 771
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Egypt and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan Affairs (Burdett)

confidential
[Washington,] January 28, 1954.

Subject:

  • Israel Complaint to the Security Council over Egyptian Restrictions on Movements of Ships Through the Suez Canal.1
[Page 1484]

Participants:

  • Mr. Anwar Niazi, First Secretary of the Egyptian Embassy
  • NE—Mr. Hart
  • NE—Mr. Burdett

At the request of the Egyptian representative to the United Nations, Mr. Niazi called to ascertain the United States position on Israel’s reported intention of raising in the Security Council the question of Egyptian interference with shipping through the Suez Canal. Mr. Hart explained the United States position as follows:

1.
The United States has repeatedly urged Israel to postpone introducing this question in the Security Council.
2.
In July 1953, the Embassy in Cairo inquired whether the Egyptian Government had extended the blockade of Israel to include food and other items. Such an extension was denied by the Foreign Office. In September 1953, Ambassador Caffery suggested that Egypt might wish to release the ship, Parnons, seized in transit to Israel. He stated that this would indicate an intention to relax the blockade and might prevent introduction of the question in the Security Council. The Ambassador indicated the United States would be forced to oppose Egypt in the Council. The Parnon was subsequently released.
3.
Egypt might wish to consider carefully the effects upon its international position of failure to comply with the Security Council resolution of September 1, 1951. By yielding to pressure from the Arab League to tighten the economic blockade, Egypt is damaging its own standing in this country.
4.
Egyptian actions place its friends in a difficult position. The United States does not see how it will be able to avoid taking a stand against Egypt in Security Council discussions of the subject. This is required by its firm policy of supporting the United Nations.
5.
The best way out of the present situation would be for Egypt to take some concrete step evidencing an intention to abandon interference with traffic through the Suez Canal. This might prevent Security Council action against Egypt.

The gist of Mr. Niazi’s lengthy remarks was a plea for further United States action vis-á-vis Israel to secure a further delay in introducing the matter in the Security Council. He pointed out the great disadvantages of raising the matter at this particular time. In reply, Mr. Hart emphasized the previous efforts of the United States and asserted that he had no hope that Israel could be prevailed [Page 1485] upon not to take this step. He again suggested that Egypt take some action relaxing the blockade. Mr. Niazi felt that there was little chance of his government making such a move.

  1. In a letter of Jan. 28 to the Security Council, the Israeli Representative requested that the Council urgently consider Israel’s complaint against Egypt concerning (a) Egyptian enforcement of restrictions on the passage of ships trading with Israel through the Suez Canal, and (b) Egyptian interference with shipping procedures to the Israeli port of Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba. (U.N. doc. S/3168) In an explanatory memorandum of Jan. 29, Eban reviewed the subject of shipping through the Suez Canal since the Security Council had last considered the subject in 1951, and stated that Egypt’s practices toward shipments destined for Israel had continued despite the Council’s injunction, and that the list of contraband had recently been extended by Egypt to include food and other commodities. The Egyptian Government, the memorandum stated, had thereby defied the Security Council, the United Nations Charter, and the Egypt-Israel General Armistice Agreement. (U.N. doc. S/3168/Add.1)

    In a letter of Feb. 3, Egypt requested the Security Council urgently to consider its complaint against Israel concerning violations in the Demilitarized Zone of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel. The letter stated that these violations included the entry of Israeli armed forces into the Demilitarized Zone, attacks on Bedouins inhabiting the area, and the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Demilitarized Zone. These acts, the letter stated, were in violation of the General Armistice Agreement and were in defiance of the Security Council Resolution of Nov. 17, 1950. (U.N. doc. S/3171)

    The Security Council on Feb. 4, 1954 included in its agenda the Israeli complaint of Jan. 28 and the Egyptian complaint of Feb. 3; these items were discussed at Security Council meetings 657 to 664, from Feb. 4 to Mar. 29. (U.N. docs. S/PV.657–664)

    ↩