Egypt

This has been a particularly stormy year. Yet the dark and angry clouds have had their silver lining. 43. The deadlock over the admission of new Members — which for years had shut the door of the United Nations to many worthy applicants — was broken, and it has become the good fortune of this Organization to add to its membership nineteen countries which will surely make valuable contributions on behalf of its purposes and ideals. 44. In the field of using atomic energy for peaceful purposes, further steps were made which, for the most part, have been in the right direction, aiming at speeding and at properly organizing the peaceful use of this immense power in the best interest of humanity at large, and not as a monopoly to serve the selfish and dangerous ambitions of the few. 45. At the same time, redoubled — though not so far successful — efforts have been made to control nuclear, thermonuclear and conventional weapons; and the movement to prohibit the use of, and even the experimentation with, atomic and hydrogen bombs has gained in strength. 46. Yet all these encouraging features of the events of the year cannot, in the opinion of many, equal in importance the growing sense of moral values, and the signs of maturity, of consciousness and alertness which the great majority of the world community of nations has shown in the face of grave dangers to and breaches ; of international peace. 47. On the other hand, and in sharp and painful contrast to the bright side of the picture, there have been situations and happenings which could not but, deeply disturb and sadden the heart of the world. 48. After a lull and some promise of improvement j in the tense atmosphere of the relations between the mighty of the earth, the pendulum has swung back in the wrong direction, with suspicions and cleavages growing deeper and wider, and putting additional strain on the prospects for the maintenance of world peace and security. 49. The programmes for making nuclear, thermonuclear and other weapons of horror and mass destruction are being feverishly activated and stepped up. The Arab people of Palestine continue to be denied their rights, their country, their nationhood and even their humanity; and their martyrdom has been savagely intensified in the last few weeks. The Arab people of Algeria continue to be massacred and sacrificed on the fiendish altar of French colonialism. 50. The decencies of the Charter have fared badly in the extreme at the hands of the United Kingdom, France and Israel, whose dark conspiracy and aggression against Egypt will have forever a conspicuous place in the annals of treachery and shame. 51. The 29th of October 1956 had initially been scheduled as the date of a meeting in Geneva between the Foreign Ministers of France, the United Kingdom and Egypt, with the5 assistance of the Secretary-General, to resume the previous discussions of the question of the Suez Canal that had taken place in New York earlier that month. Those discussions had preceded the formulation of the six principles embodied in the resolution of the Security Council of 13 October [8/3645] and had given serious promise of further progress and a definitive solution. This was shown by, among other things, the note of the Secretary-General of 3 November [S/327S]r from which it was clear that further and significant developments towards a solution had been made; and also by the statement made_ on 24 November by the Foreign Minister of Belgium [594th meeting], who is not particularly known for partiality towards Egypt in this connexion, that all that had been needed to accomplish a solution of the Suez Canal question was a little more effort. 52. Yet 29 October 1956, which had initially been expected to be the date of the renewal of constructive efforts, to which many. had looked forward with justified hope, was instead the date which Israel, France and the United Kingdom chose for letting loose the first cycle of their aggressive military action against Egypt On that date Israel attacked; and at 4.30 p.m. of the following day the British Permanent Undersecretary at the Foreign Office, with the Foreign Minister of France sitting with him and playing second fiddle, handed the Egyptian Ambassador in London an ultimatum which they had no warrant whatsoever to give and which was couched in extremely brutal and arrogant language. They wanted the Government of Egypt to answer within twelve hours. 53. When Egypt refused to bend and did not submit to this humiliation, the armed forces of France and the United Kingdom attacked Egypt, and the tragedy became more tragic still. 54. Up to this morning, the armed forces of the three invaders are still on Egyptian territory, defying the United Nations and turning a deaf ear to all the calls of the Assembly to them to get their armed forces out of Egyptian territory. 55. It is true that today the French Government stated that the news published about French tanks being landed at Port Said, which I reported here to the General Assembly as I felt duty bound to do, was not correct. Of course, the Assembly is free to take the affirmation by the French Government for what it is worth. It is an affirmation by a party and not a finding of the United Nations. But even suppose that it is true, are the French armed forces still on Egyptian territory or are they not? And is France refusing or is not refusing to comply with the repeated, clear-cut and firm resolutions of the General Assembly? 56. We are waiting and waiting for the three invaders to show even a sign that they have at least the minimum of respect for world opinion and for the United Nations. But this waiting of ours for such a thing to happen is entirely in vain. 57. At the time the aggression upon Egypt took place, the British Prime Minister announced that the purpose of attacking Egypt was to keep the belligerents apart and to safeguard the passage of ships through the Suez Canal. What, in fact, the twelve-hour ultimatum demanded, however, was that the armed forces of Egypt — not, of course, those of Israel — should retreat 100 miles from the Egyptian frontiers. Furthermore, the French and British forces never engaged the attacking Israelis or drove them back. Of course, we knew that this was unthinkable from their point of view and according to their attitude and their policy. Instead the French and British armed forces bombed and assaulted the defending Egyptians. In other words, they came to Egypt only to help the aggressors. They came as the invaders, the violators of the Charter, and not to help the victims of aggression, not to re-establish respect for the Charter. 58. In any case, they had no capacity, no quality and no warrant to intervene, as we have shown before and as is abundantly clear to the whole world. As for the passage of ships through the Canal, we all know that since that aggression against Egypt took place no ships have passed through the Canal and none are expected to do so for a long time to come. 59. It was not, therefore, the keeping apart of the belligerents or the safeguarding of the passage of ships through the Suez Canal which prompted France and the United Kingdom to attack Egypt. The real truth is that France and the United Kingdom did not at all like the colour of Egypt’s eyes. Egypt, with the great majority of the Members of the United Nations, with the great majority of the peoples of the earth, was raising its voice and dedicating its efforts on behalf of progress, foresight, morality, justice and the ideals of the Charter of the United Nations. Together with the mass of opinion of mankind, the view and the policy of Egypt have been for relationships between the nations of the world to be based on liberty, fraternity and equality — on those three high ideals which the great French Revolution proclaimed to the world, but which, together with its associates, the France of today is dishonouring and deserting. 60. With the great majority of the peoples of the world, Egypt has been saying, and will continue to say, that all nations can and should, for their own good, moral as well as material, live together in equality, freedom and fraternity, and with modem science and its vast potentialities at the service of man, enabling him, carried by the momentum of liberty and faith, to live an infinitely more productive and honourable life. 61. Should we drag this down to the sombre abyss of the degrading relationships of tyranny and colonialism? Should we allow the peoples of the world to continue to be divided into exploiter and exploited, dominator and dominated, tyrant and tyrannized, to the detriment and dishonour of all? The thought of this is inconceivable. Egypt and the great majority of other countries of the world desire only to construct, not to destroy; they want freedom for all and not merely for some, not — as some eyes, from behind their dark spectacles, claim to see — the passage of nations from one foreign domination to another. 62. Can the aggression against Egypt honestly be seen as anything but what it is — the resort to brutal force and the wiping out of the thousands of years through which man is supposed to have progressed from the life of the cave and the law of the jungle to exalted heights of liberty and human worth? 63. A thorough investigation by the United Nations of all the plottings, the phases and the events of this conspiracy and this tripartite aggression should be made in order to assess the guilt or — who knows? — perhaps establish the innocence of the authors of that aggression. This investigation should be made to be a lessen and a warning to all, and a sober, though painful, reminder of how far, along the mounting road of humanity, the human race still has to go. Following such investigation, this Organization should give its verdict and pronounce its sentence. 64. Furthermore, the right of Egypt to compensation must be recognized. The immense amount of damage and destruction which Egypt has suffered must be repaired. The invaders must be made to pay for at least the material devastation which they have wrought — they will never be able to make amends for the havoc which they have played with the sense of security, the peace of mind and the happiness of the Egyptian people, and with the great moral values which belong to us all, values of which we, the people of the United Nations and the peoples of the whole world, are now the saddened possessors. 65. At this point, I would ask the Assembly to bear with me while I cast a glance at some of the episodes through which the present crisis has passed. 66. I submitted earlier that 29 October was the date initially scheduled for a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of France, the United Kingdom and Egypt for the purpose of continuing what had been done towards reaching a solution of the Suez Canal question. The Government of Egypt had offered, as it still does offer, to negotiate an agreement with as many countries as would be required, reaffirming the Constantinople Convention of 1888, which guarantees freedom of navigation in the Suez Canal, and providing adequately for all reasonable guarantees to the users of the Canal. This offer may be noted quite clearly from the statements of the Egyptian Government and the records of the Security Council. 67. On 12 October, the Secretary-General presented to the Security Council, in the form of six principles, what, in his view, had emerged from the talks which had been taking place between the Foreign Ministers of France, the United Kingdom and Egypt. On 13 October, those principles were unanimously endorsed by a resolution of the Security Council [S/3675]. 68. I now ask for the indulgence of the Assembly if, at this point, I request that we all look into what happened or failed to happen, in relation to these principles, or, at least, as an illustration, to some of them. 69. With regard to the first principle, dealing with the freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal, France and the United Kingdom, with the assistance of some segments of the former Suez Canal Company, did everything they possibly could to stymie and paralyse every effort of the Government of Egypt to make a success of the operation of the Canal by the Egyptian authority which had been given an autonomous status and entrusted with that operation. The machinations and acts of sabotage of those two Governments included the instigating of British, French and other non-Egyptian pilots to abandon their duties abruptly and without due motive. 70. In spite of these dark plots and disruptive actions, the Egyptian authority proved itself perfectly able to operate the Canal; and, in the ninety-seven days from the date of the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company until 31 October, when the invading forces reached the Suez Canal area, no fewer than 4,031 ships, an average of 41 ships a day, passed through the Canal safely, efficiently, and on time; this, compared with 3,908 ships during the corresponding period of the year before nationalization, with an average of 39 ships a day instead of 41. Now, let the invaders tell us the number of ships which have passed through the Canal since they began to take care of the situation. 71. The second principle endorsed by the Security Council is that the sovereignty of Egypt should be respected. Today, the world sees, to its horror and deep sorrow, how the invaders understood that principle. 72. As for the third principle, that the operation of the Canal should be insulated from the politics of any country, I have this to say. From the very beginning, from the first days of the last century, when the Suez Canal began to function, Egypt has granted and safeguarded freedom of navigation in the Suez Canal for all, and at all times, without discrimination. The Government of Egypt has never wavered in its determination to uphold this principle and, in several declarations, including those made before the Security Council, it has given clear expression to this determination. 73. In sharp contrast to that, France and the United Kingdom, and some others, understood freedom of navigation to mean freedom for themselves to take possession of the Canal and dispose of it according to their own wishes; and, by insulation of the Canal from politics, they meant, not that at all, but the insulation of the Canal from Egypt. And now, with their invasion, with their destructiveness, and with the havoc they played with the Canal, they have thoroughly succeeded, not in insulating the Canal from politics, but in insulating the Canal from existing at all. 74. I do not think that I need proceed any longer with this exposition of the attitude of France and the United Kingdom in relation to the principles which they themselves upheld, or said they did, and which the Security Council endorsed in a resolution they themselves had sponsored. I admit that it is impossible for me to think of a more cynical way than this of looking at international relations and dealing with them. 75. And now with Israel let in on the conspiracy, and accepted as a partner, the worst triumvirate of all time is running amuck and giving the world the ugliest possible example of outlawry and of shameless guilt. No wonder that many, even among those who do not usually share Cairo’s views, have found themselves unable to stomach all this. Such, for example, was the feeling which led to the resignations of several members of the British Government, of whom one was Mr. Nutting, the former British Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. Such was also the feeling which impelled Mr. Gaitskell, after listening to Sir Anthony Eden’s statement, to declare in the House of Commons on 3 November that: “It is unfortunately perfectly clear both from the reports of the continuing and, indeed, intensification of, bombing by British planes and from the Prime Minister’s statement this morning that the British Government is not carrying out the recommendation of the Assembly. We are, therefore, faced with the position that our Government are defying a resolution of the United Nations Assembly, carried by a majority which is larger, I believe, than on any other resolution previously carried by the Assembly. As regards the conditions laid down by the Government, it is no part of the business of Her Majesty’s Government to lay down conditions in this matter. It is their duty, as loyal members of the United Nations — if they were loyal members — to accept that majority decision." These words, “if they were loyal members”, are the words of Mr. Gaitskell — they are not mine. Then Mr. Gaitskell continues: “What Her Majesty’s Government have undoubtedly done, of course, is to intervene against Egypt, which was clearly attacked by Israel. I do not know whether they regard that as a matter of which they should be proud. I do not know whether they regard that as separating the combatants. I do not know whether they regard that as settling hostilities. What they have done is to bomb a number of civilians as well as military installations in Egypt. What they have done is to destroy all faith in collective security.” 76. That was said on 3 November — a long time ago. Yet neither it nor all the expressions of deep resentment by all the world sufficed to move the British Government or its associates from the dark recesses of their chosen position into a clear position of decency which could stand scrutiny in the light of truth. As late as 17 November, the British Prime Minister said: “We make no apology and we will never make one for the action which we and our French allies took.” I suppose we can all survive without the British Prime Minister’s apologies or those of his allies. What we do insist upon, however, is that they comply forthwith, fully, instantly and honestly, with the resolutions of the General Assembly relating to the present crisis, and stop that most undignified and unworthy game of hide-and-seek which they are playing with these resolutions. 77. Israel has been saying time and again that it owes its existence to the United Nations. France and the United Kingdom are among the authors of the Charter, are constituent Members of the United Nations, and are, moreover, permanent members of the Security Council. It was therefore to be assumed and expected that they would show particular respect for this Organization and particular care for its purposes and ideals. Yet what have they done? Have they, by their aggression, maintained freedom of navigation in the Canal — that freedom over which they were feigning to shed so many tears? Or is not the Canal completely discounted for a long time, thanks to their intervention? Have they shown respect for the Charter of the United Nations, or is the Charter groaning in anguish because of their actions? Has Israel maintained the Armistice Agreement with Egypt, or shall we believe Mr. Ben-Gurion when he says that the Armistice Agreement with Egypt is dead? Has the United Kingdom maintained its agreement of 1954 with Egypt? And is invading Egypt the way to establish the relations between two countries on a basis of mutual understanding and firm friendship? 78. Then let us look at what two conspicuous members of the triumvirate of aggression, France and the United Kingdom, are doing with their membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in which they hold a position of distinction as big Powers and constituent' members. We can hardly believe our eyes when, in the very preamble and the first article of the North Atlantic Treaty, we read the following: “The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live In peace with all peoples and all Governments. “They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. “They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. “They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security . . . “The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” 79. Today, after over seven and a half years since the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, is the world not entitled to ask what have France and the United Kingdom, during all that time, done with their membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and with their access to its resources and weapons? What have they done besides killing the Algerians yesterday, and killing both the Algerians and the Egyptians today? Is it for this that we should extol the virtues of that organization and sing its praises? What else has it done at all so far at the hands of France and the United Kingdom? 80. For how long will these wayward Members of the United Nations run away from it? How long will it take them to return, with sound mind and conviction, not only with their bodies? The road is clear and straight. Let them reform their ways and be proud of doing so. Let them make amends for the damage they have done to others, and stop doing harm to themselves. And if the British Prime Minister does not wish to apologize, if his associates do not — never mind. Let their apology be in the form of deeds, good deeds, which would not sadden, but which would gladden the world’s heart. 81. For our part, and over a world-wide horizon, we are fully and constantly aware of the sheer folly of war and are firm believers in the imperativeness of peace. 82. I am about to end my submission for today. Before I do so, and thinking of all that has been done and of all that has taken place in this hallowed hall of the General Assembly, and beyond it, I wish to say that a grateful Egypt will ever remember, will never forget, the good deed of all who have truthfully stood by it in an hour of trial and in time of need.