U.N. SESSION ON SUEZ CANAL

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28263, 29 April 1957, Page 9

U.N. SESSION ON SUEZ CANAL

“Egypt A Clear-Cut Winner”

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 8.30 p.m.) NEW YORK, April 27. Egypt emerged the clear-cut winner in the first United Nations session on its new plan to operate the Suez Canal, Western diplomatic sources said today.

They said that as long as President Gamal Nasser abided by the terms of the document he registered with the United Nations, as an “international instrument,” he probably would run into no more organised opposition from the West An all-day Security Council discussion yesterday showed two members satisfied with the Egyptian declaration, three willing to give it a try and six anxious to replace it with an international agreement.

For it were Iraq and the Soviet Union. For giving it a try were Nationalist China, the Philip, pines and the United States.

For replacing it were Australia, Britain, Colombia, Cuba, France and Sweden.

One common criticism was that the declaration did not provide for “organised co-operation” between Egypt and the users. Another was that Egypt could revoke it without getting anybody else’s permission. Sir Pierson Dixon (Britain), the Council President, said the document still needed study and that his Government might wish to consult with other user governments not represented on the council.

Saying that this might take a few days, he adjourned the debate to a date to be fixed by agreement of council members. Dr. E. Ronald Walker (Australia) and Mr Guillaume GeorgesPicot (France) had suggested that the council should arrange for further negotiations toward an international canal agreement, but no resolution calling for this was introduced.

The Egyptian declaration pledges the Cairo Government to observe the 1888 Constantinople Convention for freedom of Suez navigation “within the limits” set by the convention. Egypt interprets this to mean it can continue to bar Israeli ships under the security provisions of the convention.

The declaration says Egypt will operate the canal, collect the tolls, set aside 5 per cent, for Government royalties and 25 per cent, for improvements, and negotiate on any toll increases higher than 1 per cent, a year. It also says Egypt will welcome co-operation from “representatives of shipping and trade,” abide by arbitration of complaints of discrimination and claims for compensation and let the International Court decide disputes over interpretation of the convention. The Egyptian representative, Mr Omar Loutfl, sitting at the council discussion but without voting rights, said that all this fully conformed to the convention and to the six requirements for a canal settlement endorsed by Egypt and the council on October 13 last. “Middle East Munich” (Rec. 8 p.m.) NEW YORK, April 27. The “New York Times” said today: “The Suez Canal crisis has come to a provisional dead-end which, barring a later breakthrough, amounts to a Middle Eastern Munich. “President Nasser of Egypt emerges from the crisis exactly in the role that the Soviet, as stated in Premier Bulganin’s letter to the then Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden) wished him to have—the ‘sovereign master of the Suez Canal,’ able to hold the Western world at ransom.” The “Christian Science Monitor” said that the Egyptian document did not fulfil all requirements desired after nationalisation. “but it comes near enough to give Britain, France, and other maritime nations substantial reassurance. . . . “On the whole, it looks as if the United Nations Secretary-Gen-eral, Mr Hammarskjold, the American Ambassador. Mr R. A. Hare, and the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Dr. Fawzi. deserve a great deal of credit for the care-

ful working out of a detailed understanding by which the Suez Canal may be put back into extensive use.”