U.N. Seen As Only Hope In Middle East Conflict

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31840, 19 November 1968, Page 18

U.N. Seen As Only Hope In Middle East Conflict

The only hope for a political solution of the problems in the Middle East was through the machinery of the United Nations, LieutenantColonel M. G. Stanaway told the annual meeting of the Christchurch branch of the United Nations Association last evening. Colonel Stanaway was with the United Nations truce supervision organisation for four years and was chairman of the mixed armistice commission with headquarters in Jerusalem. The United Nations was a cushion between the Israelis and the Arabs, he said. If the cushion was taken away there would be an even greater problem the confrontation of Russia and the United States. The conflict had become more than an Arab-Israeli conflict—it was East versus West because of the strategic position of the Middle East, said Colonel Stanaway. He said he had developed an immense loyalty to the United Nations organisation because it was the only means of keeping the peace between the Arabs and Israelis, in spite of the criticism levelled at the organisation. People of up to 30 countries could be found in one area trying to keep the peace or arrange a cease-fire, and even today the United Nations peace-keeping force in the Middle East was doing a great job. There were 119 military observers along the Suez

Canal and more along the Israel-Lebanon border, but there were now none on the Israel-Jordan border, because neither country wanted them there. Colonel Stanaway said he spent his time investigating and trying to solve disputes or trying to maintain a truce. It was often an impossible task. He would spend up to five hours trying to get both parties to agree to a word in an agreement. His headquarters were on no-man’s land in Jerusalem and meetings there were often the only real opportunity Arabs and Israelis had to discuss matters. They often shouted and “thumped the table” but it was better to have them shouting than shooting. Future of Canal

It would be about five years before the Suez Canal was reopened, if it ever was, said Colonel Stanaway. Even if it were opened it would never be more than a second-rate waterway because even be fore the war of June, 1967, it had begun to decline in importance. Larger oil tankers were being built—they were too large to go through the canal—and more pipelines were being built to bypass the canal.

Also, as long as the Vietnam war lasted the United States did not want the canal open, as Russia was prevented from shipping arms to Vietnam through the eanal.