SHIPPING IN SUEZ CANAL

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27307, 25 March 1954, Page 11

SHIPPING IN SUEZ CANAL

Egypt’s Warning In U.N. Debate

(N.Z. Press Association —Copyright)

(Rec. 9.45 p.m.) NEW Y ORK, March 23. Egypt warned the Western Powers in the United Nations Security Council tonight that if they supported the proposed New Zealand resolution noting with “grave concern” Egypt’s continued restrictions on Israel-bound shipping through the Suez Canal, the Arabs would react unfavourably. Mr Mahmoud Azmi, the Egyptian delegate, “energetically” rejected the New Zealand draft which called on Egypt to comply with the 1951 resolution under which the council had first requested the lifting of the restrictions-. Reuter’s United Nations correspondent says that wellinformed Western sources believe the Soviet Union, in it* campaign to win favour with the Arab States, will be prepared to veto the New Zealand resolution to prevent its passage. The resolution is reported to be assured of the necessary majority of seven of the 11 members of the council. Observers link Mr Azmi’s warning with the possibility of the Soviet veto. Mr Azmi said the situation which should call for the council’s “grave concern” was continued Israeli aggression and a “spirit of expansion” which he alleged Israel constantly displayed. He said the question of freedom of passage through the Suez Canal did not fail within the competence of the Security Council.

He said the issue of freedom of navigation was governed by the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and that was where the maritime Powers should turn if they wished to complain of obstacles in the way of free passage. Another Arab 'spokesman. Dr. Charles Malik, of the Lebanon? criticised the New Zealand draft and declared that the New Zealand delegate. Mr L. K. Munro, had to a large extent proven himself an advocate of Israel. Dr. Malik said the element of impartiality and balance was lacking in the. New Zealand resolution. “This text is from beginning to end constructed only with a view to bringing pressure on Egypt,” he said. Mr Munro had earlier in the day declared before the Security Council that the Egyptian Government had ignored “with every appearance of deliberation,” the 1951 decision of the council calling upon Egypt to lift the restrictions on Israel-bound shipping through the canal. Mr Munro formally placed before the council a resolution expressing grave concern at Egypt’s lack of compliance with the council’s call, issued two and a half years ago, to halt the restrictions.

The N6w Zealand draft proposal would further call upon Egypt to comply with the council’s request. The issue has been brought to the council by Israel, which alleged that the restrictions have been extended to include shipments of food on the way to Israel. Israel also complained that ships proceeding to the Israeli port of Elath, on the Gulf of Aqba, were being stopped bv Egypt. On regarding this point the New Zealand resolution proposes that the complaint first be dealt with by the Mixed Armistice Commission. Mr Munro’s Speech “Every member of the council grieves over the affrays and troubles which have so long disturbed the borders of Israel and her neighbours,” said Mr Munro. “But neither their occurrence nor the other grievances which Egypt and her allies may have against Israel can serve to justify the continuing breach of a resolution of this council affirming the free right of passage for ships of all nations on the seas and through one of the greatest waterways of the world.” New Zealand’s Concern Mr Munro said that for maritime nations like New Zealand the preservation of freedom of passage on the high seas and in recognised international waterways was a matter of profound concern. New Zealand had no motive for partisanship, nor any lack of regard for the wider issues. Mr Munro recalled that he had announced on February 24 his delegation’s intention to draw up a resolution, and he added, in a reference to recent government crises in Egypt and Syria, “at that time we had no knowledge of certain internal events in the Arab States, which were then impending, and to which reference has been made in this debate.” Mr Munro said his resolution was directed primarily to the issue of noncompliance with the council’s earlier resolution. “In our opinion it is in Egypt’s interests, and in the interests of the Arab world as a whole, that resolutions of the council should be complied with,” Mr Munro said. “Under the Charter it is the clear duty of all United Nations members to observe council resolutions. We cannot accept the argument that Egypt is entitled to disregard the terms of the resolution of September, 1951, by reason of a reservation entered at the time of its adoption. “The expression of its grave concern was the most moderate statement of what the council’s attitude must be,” Mr Munro said. Israeli delegation circles were pleased by Mr Munro’s speech. Mr Azhi (Egypt) said that Egypt energetically rejected the New Zealand draft, as it had rejected the 1951 resolution. “It is convinced that both resolutions do not deal with the question as it should be dealt with.” he said. “The legal element which is at the basis of this dispute is totally absent.”

“If it is desired to see an end to the measures taken by Egypt there will have to be an end on the Israeli side to attacks and violations, and Egypt will have to have formal guarantee that such attacks and violations will no longer occur.” ,

The debate was adjourned until Thursday.