633. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Department of State1
3070. Eyes only for the Acting Secretary. Pursuant to your telephone call last night2 I immediately told Butler of the importance we attach to Lloyd’s statement in Parliament today including a specific date by which British and French withdrawal will have been accomplished. I emphasized that in the absence of a public statement specifying that date, it is impossible for us to urge on the Egyptians that they agree to expedite clearance of the Canal. I also emphasized that public announcement of the date would be most important in determining the nature of any supporting statement the United States might make as the British have so urgently requested, and added in this connection that it is obviously also essential for us to have the text of Lloyd’s speech at the earliest possible moment in order for US to consider the nature of any supporting statement that might be possible.
Finally, I suggested that if, as Lloyd had told me, the British expect the date to come out in the course of the debate, it would seem to be in the government’s interest to volunteer it and get some credit for so doing rather than to have it forced out of them by Parliamentary pressure.
[Page 1239]Butler promised to have the text of Lloyd’s speech furnished us just as soon as it has been drafted and cleared by the Cabinet. With regard to public announcement of the date he said he understood our position but maintained that in addition to those objections by the French there were technical difficulties which caused the British military also to object. The military feel that it may be impossible to meet a two weeks deadline by a day or two, although it may on the other hand be possible to accomplish the withdrawal in a day or two less than two weeks.
Butler repeatedly stated that the assurances as to their firm intention to withdraw within two weeks which they have given to the Secretary General are regarded as satisfactory by him, and Butler reiterated that the British will in fact accomplish the withdrawal by December 18.3
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 741.13/12–356. Top Secret; Niact. Received at 8:44 a.m.↩
- No account of this conversation has been found in Department of State files or in the Eisenhower Library. Dulles had returned to Washington from Key West via Augusta, Georgia, on December 2. (Dulles’ Appointment Book; Princeton University Library, Dulles Papers)↩
- During the afternoon of December 3, London time, Foreign Secretary Lloyd told the House of Commons that the British Government was satisfied that Secretary-General Hammarskjöld would press forward with the task of clearing the Suez Canal, that work would begin as soon as technically possible, and that progress toward clearance would not depend on other considerations. Lloyd then noted that the French and British Governments had come to the conclusion that the withdrawal of their forces in the Port Said area could be carried out without delay and had instructed the Allied Commander in Chief General Sir Charles Keightly to seek agreement with U.N. Commander General Burns on a timetable for the complete withdrawal of Anglo-French forces, taking into account military and practical problems involved. (House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 561, cols. 879–885) A text of Lloyd’s comments, as reported by the British press, was transmitted to the Department of State in telegram 3085 from London, December 3. (Department of State, Central Files, 684A.86/12–356) On December 3, the Embassy in Paris reported that at 5:10 p.m., Paris time, Pineau made a similar declaration in the French National Assembly. (Telegram 2754 from Paris; ibid., 320.5780/12–356) The British and French Governments informed Secretary-General Hammarskjöld of their decision in separate notes verbales on December 3. (Note by the Secretary-General, December 3; U.N. doc. A/3415)↩