Eden “Will Never Apologise” For Intervention

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28129, 19 November 1956, Page 11

Eden “Will Never Apologise” For Intervention

(N.Z. Press Association —Copyright)

(Rec. 10 p.m.) LONDON, November 17. Sir Anthony Eden said today that the British Government would never apologise for the British-French intervention in Egypt.

Tlie Prime Minister told more than 4000 young Conservatives: “However drastic and however unpopular, it limited the conflict, it extinguished it and gave the world a chance to work for a solution on the basis of reality.”

He added: "The truth is that we have checked a drift which would have ended in the loss of countless lives and more other evils than we can ever estimate."

Sir Anthony Eden said some people had argued that having taken the decision to intervene. Britain should have continued the military operations until all three key positions on the Suez Canal had been secured. The Government understood the argument, but could not accept it. “We had said that we would cease all military action as soon as the Israeli and Egyptian Governments accepted an unconditional cease fire and the international force." he said.

“On November 6 both these governments had in fact promised to do so. In the light of the undertaking which we had given, Her Majesty’s Government could not have refused to conform in also ordering a cease fire “Secured Main Objective” “We have already secured our main objective—to halt hostilities and thereby prevent their wider spread. Our two Powers, Britain and France, working together in loyal comradeship. could not have done more. “I repeat, we make no apology. Still less do we accept comparison with those who have slaughtered God knows how many thousands of the brave and unhappy people of Hungary.” • Sir Anthony Eden said that now press correspondents covering events in Budapest had reached Vienna, the story of the Hungarian people’s incredible gallantry had been told to the world. “The Soviet attack has been exposed for what it is—a brutal onslaught on a people whose only wish was to be free.” he said.

“Compare that again with our action. Every conceivable precaution was taken by our forces to avoid bloodshed ’’

The Prime Minister said surprise had been expressed at the vast extent of the recaptures of Soviet equipment by Israeli forces in the Sinai Peninsula. “Who can doubt that aggressive plans had been carefully laid?” he said. “They had indeed been proclaimed. In all this dangerous activity, of which the seizure of the canal formed our part, no-one should have doubted that an explosion was inevitable sooner or later.”

He said “the deep divide” between the Communist Powers and the free

world had been secretly dug beneath the surface of Middle East countries. “It would, of course, have been possible for us to avoid facing this, danger. For a while we could have turned our backs on reality while the tension was mounting and Soviet power was steadily infiltrating throughout the Middle East. “And for Britain this would have meant being slowly strangled. I can assure you that even the effect of the ships sunk in the canal is a temporary worry compared with the disaster this must have meant for us all.” War Danger “Immediate” He added: “The reality has become more apparent since the fighting. Fear has been gradually spreading in these Middle Eastern lands while the Egyptian Government under Colonel Nasser sought to establish its dominion over them all. As a consequence, the danger of an outbreak of war, which would have spread through the Middle East, was immediate and menacing.” Britain, the Prime Minister said, welcomed United Nations observers in Egypt. But no United Nations observers—let alone a United Nations force —had been allowed on Hungarian soil. “If they were, those long trains with their tragic loads would not go rumbling eastwards,” he said. “Why should not the Soviets accept United Nations observers and invite United Nations forces into Hungary? “Nauseating Hypocrisy”

“Unfortunately, only the debate continues and action lags behind. For a country to enslave Hungary and at the same time to lecture us for opr action in Egypt is nauseating hpyocrisy.” Sir Anthony Eden said: “There is too much of a tendency in the world to hound the democracies because it is a safe thing to do, and to condone and even excuse dictatorship because they cannot be coerced. Moral weakness of that kind will never build a good law. “The creation of a United Nations armed police force to restore peace in the Middle East and promote a general settlement could be ‘a watershed in history.’ If the result of the Brit-ish-French action was to equip the United Nations with effective means to enforce its resolution, the two countries would be well rewarded.”

The United Nations would then emerge strengthened from the test which it was undergoing. “There should be no dispute about the need for such a force, the Prime Ministei said. “It will bring us much closei to the original conception of the United Nations, on which some of us worked even during the war. This was for a . world-wide organisation designed and equipped to maintain order and to uphold the rule of law.”

Law and Order The Prime Minister said those whe suggested that the British and French action struck at the roots of international law should reflect on the fact that law was always associated with order. The two things could not be separated. “It is futile to speak of the rule of law unless there is not only the will but also the means to uphold it,” he said. “If we renounce the use of force when law cannot command order then we are in fact undermining the rule of law. We are leaving the world open to the lawbreakers. To do thifS would be worse than moral cowardice. It would be folly of precisely the kind which in the thirties led the world to disaster.” The Prime Minister said: “We must not repeat the mistakes of the pre war years by behaving as though the true enemies of peace and order are armed only with intentions. Whether we like it or not, we ?re confronted with the fact that force is an integral part of the policy of some nations. We have just witnessed an appalling example of this in Hungary. This was a terrible portent for the world. “Neither Europe nor the East nor the American continent can blind themselves to its implications. We should remember, too, that the natural reluctance of democratic countries to employ force themselves offers a premium to dictatorships and to governments based on military power rather than on . the consent of the governed. They do not have to observe the same rules. They are not pledged to base their action upon the support of their own public opinion. They can more easily ignore that of the world. They can act swiftly and aggressively. They can tak> advantage of the natural reluctance of the free, world to act effectively to deprive them of what they have seized. “Therefore, let all the friends in the free world stand together and recall that peace at any price has never yet averted war,” Sir Anthony Eden said.