Soviet-British setters On Suez Crisis

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28260, 24 April 1957, Page 18

Soviet-British setters On Suez Crisis

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright)

LONDON, April 22. The British Government tonight issued the text of correspondence between Sir Anthony Eden, then British Prime Minister, and the Soviet Prime Minister (Marshal Bulganin) at the time of the Suez crisis last autumn. The first letter from the Soviet Prime Minister, dated September 11. said that attempts were being made by Britain and France to ignore the United Nations and its principles. Referring to French units being in Cyprus and the apparent readiness of Britain and France to begin military action against Egypt, the letter asked: “How can these actions be reconciled with membership of the United Nations?” It went on to say that such action would lead to tremendous damage of the canal itself, to oilfields, and pipelines, and added: “All the Arabs would rise in a sacred struggle against the foreign invasion, and this means that the material loss, particularly to Britain and France, and, for that matter, to the whole of Europe, would assume immense proportions.” Oil deliveries would be completely disrupted, with consequent loss to Britain as an island Power. The letter urged the Prime Minister to face the truth and realise that a violation of Egyptian territory would arouse the hatred of all the African and Asian nations.

It was no longer possible to threaten and brandish weapons; times have changed and any military measures can only end in failure, Marshal Bulganin wrote. “Influence of France”

Marshal Bulganin asked if it were not plain that France, which had lost a war. in Vietnam, and was now waging war in Algeria, was not involving Britain in her colonial difficulties. Marshal Bulganin said that minor wars could grow into large wars, with all the grave consequences resulting. It was obvious that in Britain and France there were certain circles urging military action, but Russia would like to believe that these circles could not triumph, bearing in mind the dangerous paths on to which they were pushing their countries. Marshal Bulganin’s letter ended: “The Soviet Union cannot stand aside from this question. We wish to warn you in a friendly way as to the dangers which might follow, if the necessary prudence is not shown.” Sir Anthony Eden’s reply, dated September 16, said that Marshal Bulganin’s letter seemed to be based on a complete misconception of the position of the British Government. It contained certain errors of fact.

It went on: “You spoke of official declarations of the readiness of Britain and France to land forces on Egypt’s territory. No

such official declaration has been made. On the contrary, Her Majesty’s Government have publicly stated that their aim is to seek a peaceful solution. Sir Anthony Eden reminded Marshal Bulganin that in response to Colonel Nasser’s “provocative and illegal acts,” Britain had called an international conference to discuss the question of the Suez Canal. Sir Anthony Eden wrote: “I must tell you frankly that the precautionary military measures are fully justified.” The leader of Egypt was a militarist, said Sir Anthony Eden, who then quoted from Nasser’s book. Sir Anthony Eden reminded Marshal Bulganin that Colonel Nasser had seized canal properties and threatened the employees, and added: “Yet this use of force has not brought any expression of disapproval from Moscow.” “In 1946,” wrote Sir Anthonv Eden, “the Soviet Government □reclaimed their support for the international control of the canal. That is what we seek, and it is, of course, fully consistent both with Egypt’s sovereignty and with the Charter of the United Nations.” Sir Anthony Eden’s letter ended: “I know you would wish me to reply with the same frankness. because I, too, sincerely value the good personal contacts established between us.” A further letter dated September 28, from Marshal Bulganin, set out additional considerations and quoted Sir Anthony Eden’s speech in Parliament on September 12, when he referred to continuing military measures being justified. Marshal Bulganin’s letter referred to the British Government, together with France and the United States, continuing to threaten Egypt, but said that Russia regarded favourably the fact that the Suez question was then under consideration by the Security Council. Canal Users’ Plan Marshal Bulganin wrote: “We cannot help noting, however, that Britain and France intend to get, in the Security Council, in defiance of Egypt, approval of the plan of a Canal Users’ Association.” The setting up of this association, Marshal Bulganin said, would mean gross violation of the 1888 convention and would infringe Egyptian sovereignty. Marshal Bulganin suggested that the question of the Suez Canal should be examined by an appropriate committee in the Security Council and said: “The effects of the policy of military threats and attempts to interfere in Egypt’s internal affairs was a threat to peace in the Near and Middle East, and was fraught with dangerous consequences.

Sir Anthony Eden replied to this letter on October 6 and said that

the military precautions taken by Britain and France were not only compatible with the principles of the United Nations, but fully justified by the conduct of Egypt. Sir Anthony Eden again reminded Marshal Bulganin that Colonel Nasser , had used force and that European civilians had been massacred in Cairo four years previously. Under the stimulus of Nasser, Egyptian mobs might once again resort to violence, he said. Sir Anthony Eden continued: “I can only express regret that the Soviet Government, while condoning the use of force by Colonel Nasser, should criticise the victims of force for taking precautionary measures, which fall far short of any act of force.” Sir Anthony Eden said that Colonel Nasser’s provocative language had not been met by any retaliation.