Busy Preliminaries To U.S.-British Conference

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27877, 27 January 1956, Page 10

Busy Preliminaries To U.S.-British Conference

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW

[Bv W N. EWER for the U.K. Information Service!

Work has already started on preparations for the British and American “top level” talks which begin in Washington at the end of the month. British and American officials and experts are together sorting out and fining down issues which their chiefs will need to consider. There was a time when* I would have said that they were drawing up an agenda. But that word has somehow got into disrepute. One speaks instead of ‘‘topic for discussion.” Such a preliminary process is essential. For this is not going to be a conference on some particular subject. The field, in a way, will be the whole world. But four men cannot just sit down together to talk about the whole world without wasting a lot of time before getting down to brass tacks. These preliminary meetings are picking out the most important —and spikiest—topics. There is no immediate and compelling occasion for such a “top level” meeting. It has not been arranged to deal with some urgent and compelling subject. British and American meetings of this kind become a regular—almost a routine —practice. And for one reason and another there has not been one for some 18 months. The President, the Prime Minister and their two Foreign Ministers were at all four Geneva meetings in July but that is another matter. This is the first occasion for such purely British and American talks since Sir Anthony Eden became Prime Minister. The last time that he was in Washington he was Foreign Secretary. And it is the first time that Mr Selwyn Lloyd has taken part in such a meeting since he became Foreign Secretary. That fact gives it a certain special importance. What, out of a whole gamut of world problems, is going to be the chief theme of conversation? Priority For Middle East There always seems to be at any given moment some part of this troubled world that is in the spotlight for one reason or another. At times in recent years it -has been Germany. At times it has been China or Korea or Indo-China. At this particular moment I think there can be no doubt that it is the Middle East. Middle Eastern questions will by no means be the only subject for discussion. But they will surely have a very high priority in the list. Mr Evelyn Shuckburgh. Under Secretary in charge of Middle Eastern Affairs in the Foreign Office, has himself gone to Washington. The so-called “Eastern question” has in one form or another been a major international subject since the Russians first annexed Turkish territory and since Bonaparte landed in Egypt. One has only to look at a world map to see that it is geographically inevitable. Today the vast oil resources of some Middle Eastern countries have made the area economically as well as geographically world important. Unfortunately it is not only important. It is disturbed and unstable. And during the last 12 months the situation has not improved. It has deteriorated. What are the causes? There is thte disruptive activity of irresponsible Saudi Arabian leaders in Jordan and the Persian Gulf: a sudden accession of oil wealth there seems to have touched off a new Saudi imperialistic movement. There is the unfortunate and unforeseen impact of the Bagdad Treaty on Egypt and other Arab States. But above all there is the fact that the always worrying situation on the Arab-Israel borders has become worse and a source of greater anxiety. It is beyond doubt worse than at any time since the Palestine armistice of 1949.

For one thing border “incidents,” inevitable in the circumstances, have become more and more serious. Israel has avowed a policy of drastic retaliation for even minor violations. That may be understandable. It is certainly dangerous. The Israel military operation across the Syrian frontier, in reprisal for the firing of shots at a police boat on Lake Tiberias, was on a far bigger scale than anything that had preceded it. It has drawn from Colonel Nasser a warning—or threat—that if such events recur he will “meet force with force.” Competition In Arms Another aggravating factor has been the intensification of competition in arming between Israel and her neighbours. Until this year a rough and uneasy balance had been kept by the policy of the Three Western Powers of restricting the sales of arms to all Middle Eastern countries. It had, needless to . say. satisfied neither Arabs nor Israelis. Each complained that

' the other was being unduly favoured. Still roughly it worked. i But now it has been made quite ' ineffective. First came the offer to I Egypt and the purchase by Egypt of an unknown quantity of Czechoslovak arms and war materials and soon after it was disclosed that both Egypt and Israel have been receiving from the West tanks and other military material which has evaded the Three Powers controls. The quantities may not in fact be very important. The disturbance of “balance” may not in fact be very great. But the psychological effect has been disastrous. Israel now suspects that Egynt and other Arab states are rearming secretly as well as openly. Arabs suspect the same of Israel. Each believes that the other is preparing to attack as soon as it judges the moment is favourable. All thinking is dominated by mutual fears. That is the most perilous of all international situations. There is danger of a sudden local incident touching off “chain reaction.” There is the temptation to think that if | collision is inevitable it would be wise to strike first. A “second round” lof Palestinian war looks more hideously possible than it did a year ago. And if war were to break out again in Palestine where might it : not end? This to my mind is the gravest of all problems which the President and the Prime Minister have to consider. What can be done? They cannot i provide a “solution.” The days when great powers could decide and dictate ; are gone in the free world. Ultimate decisions. ultimate responsibilities have now to be taken and assumed by nations which are now fully sovereign and independent. Yet there may be possibilities. There may be • steps which Britain and America 1 could take, offers which they could make which would make a detente and even a settlement possible. Even that will be a delicate operation. For both Israelis and Arabs are sensitive and inclined to suspicion. But of one thing neither should be suspicious. The supreme interest of both Britain and the United States in the Middle East is to help to preserve peace and to restore stability.