Peace, But Not At Any Price, For Britain

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28099, 15 October 1956, Page 11

Peace, But Not At Any Price, For Britain

(Rec. 9 p.m.) LONDON, October 13. The Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, said today that peace had been Britain’s aim throughout the Suez crisis negotiations—but not peace at any price“In dealing with a dictatorship, peace at any price means to increase, step by step, the dangers of universal war,” be told a mass rally of his Conservative supporters at Llandudno, in Wales, after the party’s annual conference. “When Colonel Nasser seized the canal we thought it our duty to take certain military steps in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Government has no intention of modifying or withdrawing from this decision. “We have shown the most absolute restraint. The presence of our forces in the eastern Mediterranean, far from inflaming the situation, has greatly decreased the danger.” With Britain force was always the last resort. “Therefore we have refused to say that in no circumstances would we ever use force. No responsible government would ever give such a pledge.” Sir Anthony Eden said the Government’s Suez policy remained what it had been from the very beginningno arrangement for the future of the canal would be acceptable to Britain which left it in unfettered control of a single power which could exploit it purely for purposes of national policy. “That is our position and it has not changed,’’ the Prime Minister said. “It remains our intention to seek its acceptance by negotiation if we possibly can. I am not yet in a position to tell you what the chances are of realising this.” , . . He said he must warn people not to indulge in “hasty or over-optimistic judgment.’’ , . The last report he had received from the Foreign Secretary, Mr Selwyn Lloyd, in New York, was that a Little progress had been made, but there were still wide differences of opinion. “If such progress has been made it is due to the firmness and resolution we, and those like us, have been showing throughout this crisis,” he said. Menzies’ Mission Praised

Recalling the Menzies “five-man” mission which went to Cairo to explain the proposals of 18 nations arising from the London Suez conference, he demanded: “Could any men have shown more patience man these five did? Was that wrong? Was that against the United Nations Charter? Or was that colonialism. After recalling subsequent moves such as the setting up of the ( -anai Users’ Association and the a PP^ o .®£” to the Security Council, the Prime Minister said: “Through all these negotiations peace has been our aim but not peace at any price. And I wiu tell you why. Because in dealing with a dictatorship, peace at any price means to increase step by step tne dangers of universal war. “What is at stake is not just the canal, important though that is. It is the sanctity of international engagements. This is the supreme lesson or the period between the wars. I can never forget it.” . . “When Colonel Nasser seized the canal we thought it our duty to take certain military steps in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Government has no intention of modifying or with-d-awine from this decision. “Those precautions had to be taken to enable us to take action in defence of British life and interests or in any

other emergency that might arise in the area concerned.’ “All that we have done since is completely in accord with what I said at the time. The movement of every unit has been either to British territory or to territories where we have treaty rights, not one of which we have infringed in the slightest degree. “In other words, we have shown the most absolute restraint. The presence of our forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, far from inflaming the situation, has greatly decreased the danger or further incidents and induced a measure of caution in some minds. “What would anyone in this coun.ry have said if we had not taken those precautions and if there had been a repetition of the massacre in Cairo in 1952? Better to be safe than sorry. “Some have protested that the precautions are on too large a scale. My reply is that if you are determined to defend national interests, nothing is more foolish than to do so with inadequate forces.” “Others ask, do we need to keep it up? To relax now before a settlement is reached would be fatal. “There are some who argue that we should have acted more promptly by striking back the moment Colonel Nasser seized the canal. I do not agree. By going through every stage which the United Nations Charter lays down we have given an example of restraint and respect for international undertakings.

“But that does not alter the responsibility which rests upon us ’ and our allies to ensure that justice is done and that international obligations are fulfilled. After all, the United Nations Charter was set- up to discourage breaches of international engagements, not to allow them to pass with impunity. “J have seen it suggested that this dispute about the canal has something to do with colonialism. No comment could be more misleading. “Colonialism has nothing to do with th matter one way or the other. We have never disputed Egyptian sovereignty. What is at stake in this dispute is whether the sanctity of contracts has to" be respected or not.

“But if we are to discuss colonialism, is there any country in the world that has ever done so much tc bring the people of its great Empire stage by stage to full nationhood? “The process is going on now as we stand here. Contrast that with the countries taken over by communism—the Baltic States for instance. There the silence of dead night descends.’’