ANSWER FOR EGYPT

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27038, 13 May 1953, Page 9

ANSWER FOR EGYPT

Churchill Takes Firm Stand

(NX. Press jlwociatiow—CopvrljM) * (Rec 7 p.m.) LONDON, May 11. If boastful and threatening speeches in Egypt were to be translated into action, and British troops were attacked, Britain would have no choice but to defend herself, Sir Winston Churchill told the of Commons today. Britain was entirely capable of defending her position in Egypt without requiring any physical assistance from th* United States or anyone else, Sir Winston Churchill said. The British Government hoped that negotiations would be resumed; and in the meantime it would await development* with a composure which followed a combination of patient* and strength. The speech was greeted by loud cheers from both side* of the House.

“If boastful and threatening speeches, of which there has been a spate in' the last few months, and some instances, even in the last few hours; if they were to be translated into action, and our troops in the Canal Zone were to be the object of a renewed attack by saboteurs, or even by the Egyptian Army, which is being aided and trained oy Nazi instructors and staff officers in unusual numbers, and our soldiers were killed, we should have no choice—l am sorry to say this to the House, but we face facts—but to defend ourselves,” Sir Winston Churchill told the House.

The Prime Minister said that the treaty of 1936 remained valid in its present form until 1956, despite the Wafd Government’s unilateral repudiation. “We undoubtedly retain the advantages which come to a nation affected by an act of bad faith,” he added.

Power in Egypt now rested with the military junta, out one of the disadvantages of a dictatorship .was that the dictator was often dictated to by others. “What he does to others may often be done back to him,” he said. “There has followed a period of tension. during which the new dictator and his colleagues have found it necessary, apparently, to gain as much popularity as possible by the well-known process of taking it out of the British."

“Friendly Manner” Sir Winston Cnurchill said that when, last November. General Naguib and the ruling junta asked to begin negotiations on the British evacuation of the Canal Zone. Britain was prepared to discuss the whole position in a friendly manner for, naturally there was no wish to spend about £50,000,000 a year in discharging a duty that had largely fallen on Britain alone of safeguarding the interests of the free nations m the Middle East.

Safeguarding the canal was not an imperialist or colonial enterprise by the British and. if agreeable arrangements could be made for this service, it would mean a great saving in men and money. Britain was not alone in the matter because what Britain was doing was being done for every member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation from the North Cape io the Caucasus, and for the countries of the East and the Middle East. While Britain had accepted a conference with Egypt, she had first desired an understanding with the United States about the indispensable minimum conditions. "These conditions, while.fully respecting Egyptian sovereignty, must enable the base to be maintained in such a condition that in the event of a third world war it could function effectively in good time throughout the Middle East,’ 7 he said.. After discussions with the Truman Administration, conclusions on the necessary conditions had been reached, but he would not mention these in detail. If these conditions were accepted in good faith, they would render possible a reduction of the British force in Egypt front 80,000 men to a small fraction of that number. The fraction remaining would be technical staff, discharging their functions with the goodwillofthe Egyptian monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, or whatever it might turn otit to be. It had been agreed with the Truman Administration that Britain and the United States should act together to carry out this policy. When President Eisenhower came into office it was reviewed. but he was not authorised to disclose the form that the agreement reached. It had: been suggested to the Egyptians that they should meet Britlisn and American representatives together, but they did not wish the Americans to be included. The United States had deferred to their wishes, and Britain went into the conference alone. “We did not sek these negotiations,” said Sir Winston Churchill “We complied with the Egyptian desire. They asked for them, and they have now. to quote the violent outpourings of General Naguib reported in today’s newspapers, 'washed their hands of them.’ “No Ultimatum”

“Let me here say that I have hitherto had no personal communication with General Naguib as stated in some of the newspapers this morning, and nothing in the nature of an ultimatum has come from Her Majesty's Government or delegation. “It is more likely that the outburst springs from a desire to impress Mr Dulles, who arrived in Cairo today. If at any time the Egyptians want to resume the discussions, we are ready, and if they will renew them, both with us and the United States, that will be still better. In the meantime, no action, as far as I can see. is called for from us.”

Mr Philip Noel-Baker (Labour), who followed Sir Winston Churchill, said that if the present deadlock in the negotiations with Egypt continued, he hoped a British Minister would go out to meet Geenral Naguib face to face to find a satisfactory solution genuinely acceptable to Egypt. “If the Kremlin and Peking mean business, the days for the deputies are over. We require a powerful Ministerial team," he said.

Brigadier Fitzroy Mac Lean (Conservative) said that no agreement with Egypt was better than a bad one. Enough British technicians must be kept in the Canal Zone to work the important installations and enough fighting forces to defend it and guarantee Britain’s re-entry in strength in an emergency, he added x Mr Michael Foot (Labour) said that the Prime Minister’s provocative statement on Egypt could only make it more difficult to reach real agreement. Britain had no right on Egyptian soil. The Liberal leader, Mr Clement Davies said that he regarded the Prime Minister’s speech as one Of his greatest —“and that is saying a great eal.”

Mr Davies said that hitherto the Prime Minister had seemed to brush aside moves to bring the leaders of the Great Powers together. “The great thing that has happened today is that he came down definitely and said that he agreed that this was the right way.”