SUEZ CANAL POLICY

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27403, 16 July 1954, Page 11

SUEZ CANAL POLICY

Rebel Group Of Conservatives (Rec. 8 p.m.) . LONDON, July 14. Mr Philip Noel Baker (Labour) urged the Government in the House of Commons yesterday to go forward for an early settlement of the Suez Canal Zone issue on terms the nation would approve.

“It would be a travesty of the democratic practice if a small minority of members (the Conservative rebels who have said they would vote against the agreement) could, prevent the Government from doing what it concludes is right.” Major Edward Legge-Bourke, one Conservative rebel who resigned from the party today over the Suez Canal question, accused the United States Ambassador in Egypt, Mr Jefferson Caffery, of “continuously undermining our case for remaining at all in Egypt.” The political consequences of what was proposed had been completely overlooked, said Major Legge-Bourke. “I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that there are certain elements who honestly believe that we should abandon the whole of our interests in Africa.” Mr Selwyn Lloyd, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who replied to the debate, said the predominant view of the House of Commons on the Suez Canal base was that agreement should be reached on suitable terms.

“I am certain we shall get no agreement on any terms under which fighting formations will stay for a substantial time in Egypt,” he said. The Government was aware of the factors to be considered—“the new development of the hydrogen bomb, the deployment of our forces, the unhappy condition of our forces in the Canal Zone, the bad relations between the Arab States and Israel, and the importance of our prestige in Asian and Arab countries. All these things have been taken into account.” “No Practicable Proposition” “I cannot believe it is a practicable proposition to leave forces in a hostile country, or to insist we should stay there. Therefore we have put forward reasonable proposals. “We hope for agreement. We think the terms are reasonable but, of course, if it proves impossible to reach agreement, then we may have to sit it out waiting with patience and in strength whatever may befall us.” Answering interruptions from Conservative back-benchers, Mr Lloyd said that on all these matters the. Government kept in close touch with Commonwealth countries. It had certainly had no reason to believe that it was not their view that a satisfactory agreement with Egypt must lie in the eventual departure of British forces. The Prime Minister said the Suez Canal discussions with the Egyptian Government had not reached a point at which any statement could be made. “I am very doubtful if it would be a good thing to begin negotiations by a categorical statement of terms which would almost invest them with the air of an ultimatum,” he said. Saying he had talked on Egypt with Mr Eisenhower, the Prime Minister added that he had for some time been of the opinion that, the United States had a strategic interest in Egypt as well as their interest in the international waterway of the Suez Canal, “and that responsibility for both these matters should no longer be allowed to rest exclusively with Great Britain.”