Menzies Discusses Gravity Of Suez Move

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28047, 15 August 1956, Page 15

Menzies Discusses Gravity Of Suez Move

(Rec. 8 p.m.) LONDON, August 13. Colonel Nasser’s action in nationalising the Suez Canal Company had created a crisis more grave than any since the end of World War 11, said the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Menzies) speaking on a 8.8. C. television programme tonight. ‘The leading trading nations of the. world are all vitally concerned.”, said Mr Menzies. “You. in Great Britain, are concerned, for a threat to the Suez Canal will, if not resisted, encourage other acts of lawlessness and SO; reduce the economic strength of your country that the whole standard of living may be drastically reduced. “This comment excludes the effect upon Britain's prestige and authority m the world. It is apparently not fashionable to speak of prestige. "Yet, the fact remains that peace in the world and the efficacy of the United Nations Charter alike require that the British Commonwealth and, ln particular, its greatest and most experienced member, the United Kingdom, should retain power, presand moral influence. "So far. there may be a considerable measure of agreement, but I have been interested to observe, in noth the United States and in London, a disposition in some private quarters find legal virtues in what Nasser has done, and to accuse the national leaders either of trying to deny to Egypt its so-called legal right to nationalise the Suez Canal, or of Prematurely dealing with a risk of which may never arise. "Tonight. I do not want to repeat what your own Prime Minister has already said on the broad nature of the issue. But I would like to dis-

cuss very briefly, the arguments of those who honestly find themselves beset bv intellectual doubts. “Not that I believe that the problem is purely, or even mainly, a legal one. On the contrary, it concerns great questions of international policy on which our views must, at our peril, be sensible, robust, and firm. “First, a few words about the position, internationally, of the Suez Canal, a trade life-line for hundreds of millions of people not only in Europe but in the great new nations south and east of the canal, including my own country of Australia. “Not Built by Egypt” “The canal was not built bv Egypt. It was the product of the bold vision and engineering genius of a Frenchman. de Lesseps. and the financial resources of a company whose shareholding was and is (subject to Nassers recent action) international. “The then government of Egypt granted to the company a concession, on stipulated terms, not due to expire until 1968. “The Suez Canal Convention of 1888, by which Egypt was bound, contained an express recital that it was desired to establish ‘a definite svstem destined to guarantee at all times, and for all the powers, the full use of the Suez Maritime Canal ’ “The validity of the convention and of the concession granted to the company has never been challenged by Egypt. “On the contrary, the convention was expressly upheld, only two years ago. by the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1954. while as recently as June of this year the Egyptian Government, in its last financial agreement with the company. acknowledged the duration and international character of the con-

cession and of the system under which the canal was run. “Yet, on July 26. 1956, less than two months later, Nasser signed and announced a law purporting to nationalise the canal company. “But ‘nationalisation’ is only a political term. “What he did, expressed precisely, was to repudiate Egypt’s contractual obligations under the concession, without consultation and without agreement. “International law is not a precise body of jurisprudence. It is always in the making. But, if there is one thing clear, it is that national contracts with the governments or citizens of other nations must be carried out unless there is legal excuse for the non-performance. If this were not so. all talk of international law would become meaningless on the very threshold. “We are about to try to deal, by negotiation, with a matter which is vital to the trade and economics of a score of nations. To leave our vital interests to the whim of one man would be suicidal. “We believe that, if the canal is to serve its growing purpose and be expanded and improved for a rapidly growing traffic, its future must be assured and guaranteed on such terms as will enable future money to be invested in it with fully protected safety, and its great functions to be performed in an assured peace.”