Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-08-12

culating to nations invited to the
London conference a draft of the
Vests proposals for a solution to
the crisis.
Key provision in the suggestions
is formation of an international
Suez Canal authority, a point that
Egypt is almost sure to reject.
Brood Support
This latter appeared to be all
too true as comments on the Suez
crisis from the Arab and Asian
nations were made public last week.
On Wednesday, in speech to the
Indian Parliament. Prime Minister
Nehru announced that India would
attend the August 16 conference.
But he also made it more than
clear that India backed Egypt's
sovereign right to nationalize the
canal company. Mr.. Nehru blamed
the action of the United States in
abruptly denying funds for the
Aswan high dam project for the
Although Mr.. Nehru's speech was
moderate in tone, and even critical
of Egypt for acting unilaterally
without prior consultation, he
plainly indicated that India would
be a spokesman for Egypt in the
conference. He said Egypt could
not and would not" be participant
IN the deliberations.
Other nations of the neutral"
bloc shared the Nehru sentiments.
Prime Minister Bandaranaike of
Ceylon warned that any decision
at London denying Egypt's right
to nationalize the canal company
would be untenable, and that Cey-
Ion would disassociate herself from
any such action. And Indonesia, in
accepting the conference invitation,
indicated strong sympathy for the
Nasser stand. In Istanbul. visiting
Libyan Premier MuStafa ben Hahn
voiced unqualified support for the
naturalization
In general, developments during
the week did little to raise hopes
that the London conference has
more than a bare chance for sue
cess. The Soviet stand was reason
for peSsimiSm, and the outSpoken
support for Egypt among the neu-
trails indicated that Egypt would
have some powerful spokesman at
the parley.
Soviet Motives Feared
The sharpness of the Soviet state
ment led not unnaturally to fears
that the Russians were going to
attend the conference for the sole
reason of denying it any chance of
success. Like the neutralS, Moscow
emphasized the Egyptian conten-
ton that the naturalization of the
canal company posed no threat to
the continued international use of
the Suez waterway under the terms
of the convention of 1888. Col.
NaSser'S spokesman have reiterated
their intention to keep the canal
open without interference and
without an increase in current toll
rates.
What seems to be the real fear
underlying the outraged response of
Britain and France to the Suez ma
tionalization is simply deep-Seated
distrust of Col. NaSser. The Egyp-
tan strong man clearly does not
have (nor has he claimed) the legal
right to close the canal-the con-
vention of 1888 makes that plain.
But he does have, in practice, the
ability to impede some or all of the
shipping passing through. In addi-
ton, he has the power, since ma
tionalization, to set tolls at any
figure he chooses.
With Western Europe immensely
dependent on Middle East oil, some
100000 barrels of which pass
through Suez every day, the effect
of Col. Nasser's abrupt nationaliza-
ton decree has been almost to ter
rify the West.
Prime Minister Eden, in his
speech to the House of Commons on
Monday, summed up the British at
titude as follows:
mo arrangements for the future Of
this greet international woterwoy would
be acceptable to Her Moiesty's govern
ment which would Ieove it in the un-
fettered control Of single power. which
could, os recent events hove shown,
exploit it purely for purposes Of national
policy"
But the reasoning of the British
and French leaders, while entirely
logical in its recognition of the in
ternational Importance of the Suez
Canal, must also stand the test of
world opinion. And that opinion, in
large areas of the world, will be
emotionally conditioned by ma
tionalistic zeal. The newly freed