British Reactions To Turkish-Syrian Crisis

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28414, 22 October 1957, Page 13

British Reactions To Turkish-Syrian Crisis

(Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.)

(Rec. 8 p.m.) LONDON. October 21. The complexities of the international arguments and exchanges over Turkey and Syria have both surprised and shocked the British public which has tended to want to forget about the chequered pattern of Middle East animosities ever since the bruising events of Suez.

There has been a rather unusual atmosphere of flat and disturbed curiosity at finding that another admittedly dangerous position has arisen, which has been described as the first overt clash between the United States and Russia in the Middle East.

Recently public attention has been centred on the launching of the Russian satellite, on talk of the arrival of the space age and on discussion of the military applications of the rockets which launched the satellite, on to a general acceptance that Russia has a lead in these weapons. But now the blunt warnings by Mr Khrushchev about the danger of war over Turkey and Syria, his Peculiar letter to the European Labour parties and the hectoring tone of Russian remarks at the United Nations have roused suspicions that Mr Khrushchev, like Hitler, is becoming obsessed with Power.

There is a wide disbelief that Turkey intends to attack Syria and a feeling that Russia is stirring up trouble for her own ends. But. apparently, according to Mr Bevan who has given an account of his talk with Mr Khrushchev, the Russians believe that the Americans are behind a plot to involve Turkey with Syria.

Mr Khrushchev told Mr Bevan: 'There arc gentlemen from Syria in Istanbul, under the protection ®f the Turkish Government who a - r e to manoeuvre themselves into office in Syria. These favour the United States. Once they are in office something will be made to happen— of which the Soviet Union, or elements favourable to the Soviet Union, will be accused. “It will be pretended that Syrian independence is in danger an d then this Syrian Government w 'll invite the Turks whose troops ar e concentrated on the Syrian frontiers to enter in order to protect Syria against Communist domination. This we will not accept.” Mr Bevan wonders whether Mr Khrushchev made this statement

to build up a justification for certain steps he already had in mind The view of the Foreign Office is that the present tension over Syria and Turkey is largely artificial. and created for propaganda■ purposes.

Just what are those purposes is being discussed in the British press from a number of angles. One opinion which seems fairly general is that Mr Khrushchev’s main intention is to disrupt N.A.T.O. and the Bagdad Pact Turkey is a cornerstone in N.A.T.O. and an indispensable link between Britain and her other partners in the Bagdad Pact. Thus, the theory is. if Russia could coerce Turkey to give up membership of both, the Western Allies would lose an all-important partner, Russian influence in the Middle East would be strengthened on the grounds that she is a champion of the Arab States against Western imperialism and that the Khrushchev Doctrine is infinitely to be preferred to the Eisenhower Doctrine.

Basically it is a clash between Russia and the United States, now filling the vacuum left by the withdrawal of British power. Britain’s reaction—with her vital oil interests in the Middle East and her defensive system based on the Western Alliance and Commonwealth ties—is that her relations with the United States must be even more firmly linked.

Indeed this has been the domin-j ant note since the launching of the satellite which has resulted in many suggestions that there should be a pooling of British and American scientific brains and knowledge. Set against this background Mr Macmillan’s coming meeting with President Eisenhower has been welcomed for many reasons and there is no doubt that the climate of opinion about their talks is much more favourable than at any period since Suez. At the same time there is strong support for proposals that the whole Turkish-Syrian affair, should be discussed by the United Nations. Another important point is that in the present complex position Mr Macmillan and the Labour Party leader, Mr GtUskell, are evidently in close consultation and there are no suggestions of the painful divisions in opinions that occurred between .he party leaders at the time of Suez.