Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-08-24
Suez and Threats

AS expected, the London conference
on the Suez crisis has come to an end
without achieving anything spectacular.
But the gathering has not been futile.
Although four of the % participating
nations (Ceylon, 1ndoneSia, India and
RusSia) have come out for proposal that
would leave full control of the canal
in Egypt's hands-subject only to the
advice" of an international board-an
overwhelming majority of Is has voted in
favor of the American-sponsored plan
which Secretary of State Dulles has so
perSuasively presented.
This plan is In basic accord with the
Anglo-French view. 1t would set up, in
association with the United Nations, an
international operating board on which
Egypt-whose sovereignty and economic
interests would be fully protected-would
play key controlling role, but not one
that would make it the complete lord and
master of the situation. AS agreed upon
in London, the United States has Joined
four other powers in undertaking to
proffer the proposal to President NaSSer
as basis for further negotiations. At the
same time, the five-nation group has also
undertaken to inform him of the Indian
sponsored minority idea under which
Cairo would be merely advised" as to
how the vital waterway should be run.
1t is practicable, especially since the
Kremlin seems to be encouraging Colonel
NasSer to take a no-compromiSe posi-
ton, that the majority plan-although
backed by such non-WeStern powers as
Iran and PakiStan-will be more or less
spurned by him. Yet the plan is reason
able one, and it lends itself to honorable
give-and-take in negotiations. Accord
ingly, if Egypt's President has no sinister
motives, if he is genuinely sincere when
he talks about his intention to maintain
uninterrupted passage through the canal,
and If all the other parties concerned are
animated by good will and an earnest
desire to put a peaceful end to the
current crisis, mutually satisfactory
settlement should be possible. This
means, of course, settlement establish
ing the genuinely dependable guarantees
that the major users of the waterway
must have to feel secure in matter that
is of life-and-death economic Importance
to them.
Unfortunately, however, there are
some highly disturbing indications that
Cairo may be in mood to carry a chip
on its shoulder regardless of possible
consequences. A symptom of this mood
Is the fact that lower echelon Egyptian
official, presumably with Colonel Nasser's
approval, has given voice to rather
ugly threat. Despite strong denialS from
London and Paris, he has charged that
Britain and France are officially con-
spring to have their nationals quit their
jobs as canal pilots, and he has warned
that repriSals may be taken in the form
of impeding and delaying the passage
Of Anglo-French shipping through the
waterway. On its face, such talk has all
the earmarks of kind of blackmail.
President NaSser, who has backed
away from his original threat to imprison
foreign technicians or pilots choosing to
quit their canal jobs voluntarily, would
be well advised to instruct his subordi-
mates to stop muttering about retaliation.
After all. talk Of that sort serves only
to bolster the suspicion that his govern
ment cannot be trusted without an
international operating authority, to keep
the Suez as open as 1t must be kept.
If he really wants to see the issue resolved
peacefully, he had better put his foot
down on any Cairo elements tempted to
pursue a reckless course.