The West Acts

A British aircraft carrier stood at the ready, and a supply fleet of 130,000 tons waited off Southampton to load equipment for the Middle East. Britain's Anthony Eden seemed confronted with the choice of making good on his assiduous saber-rattling or accepting a humiliating backdown. "Will there be war over Suez?" was the question on British minds last week as the Prime Minister stepped to the dispatch box in the House of Commons and faced an aroused Labor Party, vociferously vowing to pluck him bodily from the brink of war.

Eden was calm and forceful. Unknown to the Laborites, he had got a firm U.S. commitment to participate in the canal users' association, had finished penciling the proposal into his speech only minutes before. Quietly, he reviewed the history of the unsuccessful Menzies' mission to Cairo, then sprang the users' plan on a surprised Opposition.

Peace & Provocation. The Labor benches bristled in anticipation as Eden began to elaborate. The association, he said, would ask Nasser to let its ships pass through the canal. "If the Egyptian government should seek to interfere ["Deliberate provocation!" cried a Laborite] with the operations of the association or refuse to extend to it the essential minimum of cooperation, then that government will once more be in breach of the Convention of 1888." A heckler shouted: "What a peacemaker!"

Into too many Laborite minds sprang a vision of a convoy of tankers led by British warships shooting their way along the 103-mile canal. Above the uproar, Eden's voice rang out. "In the event [of Egyptian interference]. Her Majesty's government and others concerned will be free to take such further steps as seem to be required, either through the United Nations or by other means, for the assertion of their rights." "What do you mean by that?" shouted Laborite S. O. Davies. "You are talking about war!"

Sir Anthony flowed suavely on. "For this country, military action is always the last resort, and we shall go on working for a peaceful solution so long as there is any prospect of achieving one. But the government are not prepared to embark on a policy of abject appeasement . . . The government must be free to take whatever steps are open to them to restore the situation."

Power Play? Leader of the Opposition Hugh Gaitskell was surprised by the plan, and particularly by the U.S. involvement in it--for John Foster Dulles, so long the butt of Socialists for his "brinkmanship," had become overnight a Socialist hero striving mightily to stay ferocious Sir Anthony from war. "Are we to take it that they also agreed with the proposition that the ships are to have pilots of their own and are to go through the canal whether or not Egypt likes it?" he demanded. What alarmed Gaitskell most was Eden's implied threat to use force without U.N. sanction. "We are reverting to international anarchy," he cried. "We are asserting the view that each nation decides in its own right what it is going to do, and we are saying that only power counts."

Eden's speech had alarmed others too. Even the U.S. State Department seemed flustered by the aggressive tone of Sir Anthony. Eden had presented only one dimension of the plan. Next day Dulles added the second. As Eden had put it, the users' plan was a device to present a challenge to Nasser, which, if refused, would justify armed force. Dulles' exposition was quite different in tone and substance. If Egypt refused passage, said Dulles, "then we intend to send our boats around the Cape," and forthwith unveiled the elaborate plan for the Suez Sea Lift. In contrast to Eden's implied threats, Dulles said flatly: "We do not intend to shoot our way through."

After reading Dulles' remarks, the Laborites were reassured. Gaitskell conceded that the Dulles plan for diverting traffic around the Cape was "a very sensible proposal." He doggedly demanded, though, that Eden join Dulles in disavowing any intention of using force, and promise to take the case to the U.N.

Promises & Relief. Eden did not concede at once. "I do not believe that true and lasting peace can be bought at the price of surrender of rights and legitimate interests to outside pressure and force," he insisted. Gaitskell leaped up impatiently. Was the Prime Minister prepared to say with the U.S. that Her Majesty's government would not shoot its way through the canal? Retorted Eden: "I said that we were in complete agreement with the U.S. Government about what to do." "Answer! Answer!" cried Laborites.

Over the hubbub, Eden explained that if the Egyptian government refused to cooperate, they would be in default under the 1888 Convention. "If they are so in default, we should take them to the Security Council." It was a promise, and on the Laborite benches cheers mingled with audible sighs of relief. But it was on almost straight party lines that Prime Minister Eden won his vote of confidence, 319 to 248.

Once domestic politics were sidetracked, at least for the time being, Sir Anthony was able to turn back to the most crucial job, the diplomatic job. With the U.S. and France, he summoned a second diplomatic conference this week in London. Dulles reshuffled his Washington schedule in order to fly over, his second trip to London in five weeks to wrestle with the Suez problem. Governments using the Suez were invited to come, examine the users' plan and, if they chose, help to put it into operation.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.