Latest / Historic Speeches of the UK House of Commons, Vol. 1 / 017 - Speech on the Suez Crisis 1956

Transcript

017 - Speech on the Suez Crisis 1956 · Historic Speeches of the UK House of Commons, Vol. 1

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: An Iron Bevern on the Sewers crisis. This is a
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain.
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox dot org.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: This reading by Carl Manchester two thousand eight, speech given
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: by an Iron Bevern to the UK House of Commons,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: fifth of December nineteen fifty six. The speech to which
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: we have just listened is the last of a long
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: succession that the Right Honorable Gentleman, the Secretary of State
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: for Foreign Affairs, has made to the House in the
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: last few months, And if I may be allowed to
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: say so, I congratulate him upon having survived so far.
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: He appears to be in possession of vigorous health, which
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: is obviously not enjoyed by all his colleagues, and he
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: appears to be exempted from those Freudian lapses which have
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: distinguished the speeches of the Lord Privy Seal, and therefore
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: he has survived so far with complete vigor. However, I
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: am bound to say that the speech by the Right
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: Honorable Gentleman today carries the least conviction of all I
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: have been looking through the various objectives and reasons that
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: the Government have given to the House of Commons for
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: making war on Egypt. And it really is desirable that
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: when a nation makes war upon another nation, it should
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: be quite clear why it does so. It should not
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: keep changing the reasons as time goes on. There is
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: in fact no correspondence whatever between the reasons given today
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: and the reasons set out by the Prime Minister at
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: the beginning. The reasons have changed all the time. I
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: have got a list of them here, and for the
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: sake of the record, I propose to read it. I
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: admit that I found some difficulty in organizing a speech
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: with any coherence because of the incoherence of the reasons.
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: They are very varied. On the thirtieth of October, the
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: Prime Minister said that the purpose was first to seek
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: to separate the combatants, and second to remove the risk
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: to free passage through the canal. The speech we have
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: heard today is the first speech in which that subject
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: has been dropped. Every other statement made on the matter
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: since the beginning has always contained a reference to the
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: future of the canal as one of Her Majesty's government's objectives.
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: In fact, as an objective war to coerce Egypt Indeed,
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: that is exactly what honorable and right honorable gentlemen opposite believed.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: It was all about honorable members do not do themselves justice.
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: One does not fire in order merely to have a
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: cease fire. One would have thought that the cease fire
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: was consequent upon having fired in the first place. It
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: could have been accomplished without starting. The other objectives set
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: out on the thirtieth of October was to reduce the
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: risk to those voyaging through the canal. We heard from
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: the right honorable and learned gentleman today a statement which
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: I am quite certain all the world will read with astonishment.
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: He has said that when we landed in Port said
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: there was already every reason to believe that both Egypt
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: and Israel had agreed to cease fire. The Minister shakes
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: his head if he will recollect what his right honorable
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: and learned friends said. It was that there was still
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: a doubt about the Israeli reply. Are we really now
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: telling this country and the world that all these calamitous
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: consequences have been brought down upon us merely because of
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: a doubt? That is what he said. Surely there was
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: no need. We had, of course done the bombing, but
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: our ships were still going through the Mediterranean. We had
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: not arrived at Port Sa'id. The exertions of the United
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: Nations had already gone far enough to be able to
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: secure from Israel and Egypt. A promise to cease fire
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: that remained to be cleared up was an ambiguity about
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: the Israeli reply. In these conditions, and against the background
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: of these events, the invasion of Egypt still continued. In
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: the history of nations, there is no example of such frivolity.
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: When I have looked at this chronicle of events during
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: the last few days, with every desire in the world
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: to understand it, I just have not been able to understand,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: and do not yet understand the mentality of the government.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: If the right, honorable and learned gentleman wishes to deny
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: what I have said, I will give him a chance
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: of doing so if his words remain as they are. Now.
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: We are telling the nation and the world that, having
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: decided upon the course, we went on with it despite
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: the fact that the objective we had set ourselves had
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: already been achieved, namely the separation of the combatants. As
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: to the objective of removing the risk to free p
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: through the canal. I must confess that I have been
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: astonished at this. Also, we sent an ultimatum to Egypt,
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: by which we told her that unless she agreed to
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: our landing is Melia, Suez and Port Sayid, we should
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: make war upon her. We knew very well, did we not,
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: that Nasa could not possibly comply? Did we really believe
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: that Nasa was going to give in at once? Is
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: our information from Egypt so bad that we did not
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: know that an ultimatum of that sort was bound to
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: consolidate his position in Egypt and in the whole Arab world.
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: We knew at the time on the twenty ninth and
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: the thirtieth of October, that long before we could have
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: occupied Port Sayid, is Malia and Suez, Nasa would have
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: been in a position to make his repast. So wonderfully
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: organized was this expedition, which apparently has been a miracle
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: of military genius, that long after we had delivered our
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: ultimatums and bombed Portsa'id, our ships were still plowing through
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the Mediterranean, leaving the enemy still in possession of all
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: the main objectives which we said we wanted. Did we
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: really believe that NASA was going to wait for us
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: to arrive. He did what anybody would have thought he
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: would do, and if the government did not think he
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: would do it on that account alone, they ought to resign.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: He sank ships in the canal, though wicked man, what
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: did honorable gentlemen opposite expect him to do? The result
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: is that, in fact, the first objective realized was the
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: opposite of the one we set out to achieve. The
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: canal was blocked, and it is still blocked. The only
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: other interpretation of the government's mind is that they expected,
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: for some reason or other, that their ultimatum would bring
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: about disorder in Egypt and the collapse of the NASA regime.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: None of us believed that if honorable gentlemen opposite would
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: only reason about other people as they reason amongst themselves,
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: they would realize that a government cannot possibly surrender to
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: a threat of that sort and keep any self respect.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: We should not, should we if somebody held a pistol
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: at our heads and said you do this, or we fire?
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: Should we? Of course not? Why on earth do not
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: honorable members opposite sometimes believe that other people have the
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: same courage and independence as they themselves possess NASA behaved
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: exactly as any reasonable man would expect him to behave.
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: The other objective was to reduce the risk to those
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: voyaging through the canal. That was a rhetorical statement, and
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: one does not know what it means. I am sorry
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: the right honorable gentleman, the Prime Minister is not here.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: I appreciate why he is not here, but it is
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: very hard to reply to him when he is not
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: in the House, and I hope honorable members opposite will
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: acquip me of trying to attack him in his absence.
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: On the thirty first of October, the Prime Minister said
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: that our objective was to secure a lasting settlement and
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: to protect our nationals. What do we think of that
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: in the meantime, our nationals were living in Egypt while
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: we were murdering Egyptians at Port said, we left our
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: nationals in Egypt at the mercy of what might have
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: been merciless riots throughout the whole country, with no possibility
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: whatever of our coming to their help. We were still
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: voyaging through the Mediterranean, after having exposed them to risk
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: by our own behavior. What does the House believe that
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: the country will think when it really comes to understand
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: all this. On the first of November, we were told
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: the reason was to stop hostilities and prevent a resumption
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: of them, but hostilities had already been practically stopped. On
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: the third of November, our objectives became much more ambitious,
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: to deal with all the outstanding problems in the Middle East.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: In the famous book Madame Bovary, there is a story
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: of a woman who goes from one sin to another,
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: a long story of moral decline. In this case, our
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: ambitions saw the farther away we are from realizing them.
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: Our objective was to deal with all the outstanding problems
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: in the Middle East. After having outraged our friends, after
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: having insulted the United States, after having affronted all our
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: friends in the Commonwealth, after having driven the whole of
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: the Arab world into one solid phalanx, at least for
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: the moment behind NASA, we were then going to deal
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: with all the outstanding problems in the Middle East. The
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: next objective of which we were told was to ensure
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: that the Israeli forces withdrew from Egyptian territory. That I
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: understand is what we were there for. We went into
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: Egyptian territory in order to establish our moral right to
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: make the Israelis clear out of Egyptian territory. That is
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: a remarkable war, aim is it not in order that
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: we might get Israel out? We went in to establish
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: our case before the eyes of the world. Israel being
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: the wicked invader, We, of course, being the nice friend
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: of Egypt, went to protect her from the Israelis, but
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: unfortunately we had to bomb the Egyptians first. On the
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: sixth of November, the Prime Minister said, the action we
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: took has been an essential condition for a United Nations
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: force to come into the Canal zone itself. That is
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: one of the most remarkable claims of all, and it
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: is one of the main claims made by the right,
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: honorable and honorable members Opposite, it is of course exactly
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: the same claim which might have been made if they
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: had thought about it in time, by Mussolini and Hitler,
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: that they made war on the world in order to
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: call the United Nations into being. If it were possible
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: for bacteria to argue with each other, they would be
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: able to say that. Of course, their chief justification was
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: the advancement of medical science. As The Times has pointed out,
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: the arrival of the United Nations force could not be
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: regarded as a war aim by the government. It called
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: it an inadvertence. That is not my description. It is
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: the times. It was a byproduct of the action not
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: of Her Majesty's government, but of the United Nations itself.
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: Let me ask Honorable Members opposite to listen to this case.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: The right honorable and learned Gentleman was spending most of
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: his time in America trying to persuade the United States,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: that is, after we were in Egypt, to make the
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: control of the canal one of the conditions of our withins.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: On Thursday last he himself said, here I mention these
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: facts to the House, because obviously the build up of
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: this force must have important relationship to a phased withdrawal
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: of our own and the French troops. There are, however,
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: other important matters to be considered, such as the speedy
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: clearance of the canal and negotiation of a final settlement
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: with regard to the operation of the canal. On every
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: single occasion, and Honorable Members Opposite expected this when he
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: went upstairs to tell his honorable friends that he had
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: come back empty handed, What did they say? Why did
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: we start this operation? We started this operation in order
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: to give Nasa a black eye if we could to
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: overthrow him, but in any case to secure control of
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: the canal. The United Nations Force was in Egypt as
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: a result of a resolution of the United Nations for
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: the purposes of the Charter. All along the United States
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: and all the other nations attached to the United Nations
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: resolutely refused to allow the future of the canal to
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: be tied up with the existence of the force. But
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: the right honorable and learned gentleman, in order to have
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: some trophy to waive in the faces of his honorable friends,
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: wanted to bring from across the Atlantic an undertaking which
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: would have destroyed the United Nations, Because if the United
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: Nations had agreed that the future of the canal should
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: also be contingent upon the withdrawal of British troops, then
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: the United Nations Force would no longer have been a
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: United Nations force, but an instrument of the rump of
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: the United Nations, that is, the Western Powers. I put
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: it again to the right honorable and learned gentlemen, that
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: if honorable members opposite had succeeded in what they wanted
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: to do, they would have ruined the United Nations, because
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: the very essence of the United Nations Force is that
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: it is not attempting to impose upon Egypt any settlement
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: of the canal. I hope that honorable members opposite will
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: realize that the argument is a really serious one. It
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: was seen to be so serious by the United States that,
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: despite what I believed to be the desire on the
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: part of a very large number of Americans to help
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: us in these difficulties, it was clear to President Eisenhower,
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: as it should be clear to anybody, that a settlement
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: of that sort was bound to be resented by the
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: whole of the Arab world and Egypt. It was bound
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: to be resented by the Commonwealth, because it would make
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: it appear that Her Majesty's government were using the United
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: Nations to obtain an objective that we set ourselves as
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: far back as last August. Therefore, if the right, honorable
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: and learned Gentleman had succeeded, if the future of the
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: canal had been tied up with our withdrawal, the United
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: Nations Force in Egypt would no longer have been a
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: police force for the world, but would have been a
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: means of coercing Egypt to accept our terms about the canal.
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: Of course, the government did not support the United Nations force.
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: We all know that. Nevertheless, in this retrospective exercise that
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: we are having from the other side of the House,
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: it is possible for us to deal with the seriousness
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: of the whole case. The Right Honorable and Learned Gentleman
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: is sufficiently aware of the seriousness of it to start
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: his speech today with collusion. If collusion can be established,
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: the whole fabric of the government's case falls to the ground.
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: And they know this. It is the most serious of
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: all the charges. It is believed in the United States,
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: and it is believed by large numbers of people in
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: Great Britain that we were well aware that Israel was
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: going to make the attack on Egypt. In fact, very
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: few of the activities at the beginning of October are
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: credible except upon the assumption that the French and British
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: governments knew that something was going to happen in Egypt. Indeed,
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: the Right Honorable and Learned Gentleman has not been frank
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: with the House. We have asked him over and over again.
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: He has said, Ah, we did not conspire with France.
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: In Israel, we never said that the government might have conspired.
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: What we said was that they might have known about it.
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: The right honorable and learned Gentleman gave the House the
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: impression that at no time had he ever warned Israel
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: against an attack on Egypt. Even today he hinged the
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: warning we gave to Jordan on the possibility of the
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: other Arab states being involved in any attack on Jordan.
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: We understand from the right honorable and learned Gentleman that
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: at no time did the government warn Israel against an
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: attack on Egypt. If we apprehend trouble of these dimensions,
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: we are not dealing with small matters. If we apprehend
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: that the opening phase of a Third World War might
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: start or turn upon an attack by Israel on anyone.
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: Why did we not make it quite clear to Israel
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: that we would take the same view of an attack
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: on Egypt as we took of an attack on Jordan.
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: The fact is that all these long telephone conversations and
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: conferences between Monsieur guill Molley, Missiepino, and the Prime Minister
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: are intelligible only on the assumption that something was being
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: cooked up. All that was left to do as far
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: as we knew from the facts at the time, was
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: to pick up negotiations at Geneva about the future of
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: the canal, as had been arranged by the United Nations.
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: But all the time there was this coming and going
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: between ourselves and the French government. Did the French know?
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: It is believed that France and the French knew about
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: the Israeli intention. If the French knew, did they tell
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: the British government? We would like to know. Did Monsieur
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: Guillemolee on the sixteenth of October tell the British Prime
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: Minister that he expected that there was to be an
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: attack on Egypt. Every circumstantial fact that we know points
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: to that conclusion. For instance, mister Ben Gurion, the Israeli
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: Prime Minister, had already made it clear in the Knesset
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: on several occasions that Israel regarded Egypt as the real
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: enemy and not Jordan. Therefore a warning not to attack
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: Jordan was not relevant. At the same time, many Israelis
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: were saying that at last Israel had got a reliable friend.
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: What happened? Did Marie Anne take John Bull to an
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: unknown rendezvous? Did Marie Anne say to John Bull? That
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: there was a forest fire going to start. And did
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: John Bull then say, we ought to put it out,
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: but Marie Anne said, no, let us warm our hands
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: by it. It is a nice fire. Did Marie Anne
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: deceive John Bull or seduce him? Now, of course we
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: come to the ultimate end. It is at the end
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: of all these discussions that the war aim of the
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: government now becomes known. Of course, we knew it all
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: the time. We knew where they would land. After this
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: long voyaging, getting almost wrecked several times, they have come
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: to safe harbor. It was a red peril all the time.
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: It was Russia all the time. It was not to
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: save the canal. It was not the canal. It was
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: the red peril which they had unmasked. The government suspected
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: it before, said the right honorable and learned gentleman about
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: the arms to Egypt. We on this side knew it.
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: We did not suspect it. But the right honorable and
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: learned gentleman suspected it. So he said at the very
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: time when he was informing the House, that he thought
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: there was a proper balance of arms between Egypt and Israel.
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: What will the Israelis think of this when they read
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: the right honorable and learning gentlemen's words. Or are we
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: to understand that the Israelis have got as many arms
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: as the Egyptians have. We understand that they were fully
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: armed at the time because the right honorable and learned
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: gentlemen suspected that the Egyptians had these arms. I am
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: not in the least surprised by this situation that the
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: Russians have provided these arms to the Egyptians. We accept,
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: of course they did. It is a curious thing. I
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: may be frivolous, but I am not frightened by it,
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: and I will tell the House why the Russians have
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: a habit curiously enough. It seems to me of not
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: knowing what is happening in other nations. They do not
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: even know what is happening in Poland or Hungary. And
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: it does not seem to have occurred to the Russians
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: that there was no military advantage in providing weapons that
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: the Egyptians could not use. The fact of the matter
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: is that these great modern weapons are practically useless in
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: the hands of backward nations. Do not. However, yet, honorable
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: members push the argument too far. I am not for
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: one moment seeking to justify the Russian supply of arms
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: to Egypt. I think it was a wicked thing to do,
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: and I think it is an equally wicked thing for
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: us to supply arms that area is much too combustible,
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: far too inflammatory. This is now the end of nineteen
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: fifty six, when very many things have happened in the
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: Middle East, when it is more dangerous than ever. I
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: think that the Russians ought not to have done it,
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: and I will say further that I think NASA ought
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: not to have invited them. It seems to me, and
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: here I probably shall carry honorable members opposite with me,
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: that NASA has not been behaving in the spirit of
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: the bandoing conference which he joined, because what he did
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: was not to try to reduce the temperature of the
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: Cold War. What he did was to exploit it for
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: Egyptian purposes. Therefore, NASA's hands are not clean by any means.
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: I have said this before, I said it in Trafalgar Square.
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: We must not believe that because the Prime Minister is wrong,
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: NASA is right. That is not the view of this
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: side of the House. What has deeply offended us is
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: that such wrongs as NASA has done, and such faults,
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: as he has have been covered by the bigger blunders
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: of the British government. That is what vexes us. We
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: are satisfied that the arts of diplomacy would have brought
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: Nasa to where we wanted to get him, which was
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: to agree about the free passage of ships through the
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: canal on the civilized ground that a Riparian nation has
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: got no absolute rights over a great waterway like the canal.
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: That is a principle which has been accepted by India,
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: and by America and by most other nations. We have
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: never taken the position that, in the exercise of sovereign rights,
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: Egypt has the right to inflict a mortal wound upon
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: the commerce of the world. Do not let honorable memory
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: now bring to the forefront of the argument the fact
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: that Egypt had not been allowing Israeli ships to go
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: through the canal. If they thought so much of the
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: seriousness of that, why did they not even invite Israel
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: to the conference. It is not good enough to bring
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: these things forward all the time, as though they were
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: the main objectives. Of course, we take the view that
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: Egypt should permit the ships of all nations to pass
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: through the Canal, and we hope that that objective will
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: still be insisted upon. We are satisfied that those objectives
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: could have been realized by negotiation. Not only have they
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: not been realized by the action taken by the government,
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: but the opposite has been realized. It has been clear
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: to us and it is now becoming clear to the
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: nation that for many months past Honorable Members opposite, have
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: been harboring designs of this sort. One of the reasons
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: why we could not get a civil solution of the
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: Cypress problem was that the government were harboring designs to
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: use Cyprus in the Middle East, unilaterally or in conjunction
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: with France. Whenever we put to this House questions to
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: the right Honorable Gentleman asking him why he did not
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: answer whether he wanted a base on Cyprus or Cypress
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: as a base, he answered, quite frankly, that we might
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: want to activate the base on Cyprus independently of our allies.
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: That was the answer. Well, we have activated it, and
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: look at us. We have had all these murders and
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: all this terror, and we have had all this unfriendship
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: over Cyprus between ourselves and Greece, and we have been
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: held up to derision in all the world, merely because
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: we contemplated using Cyprus as a base for going it
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: alone in the Middle East, and we did go it alone.
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: Look at the result. Was it not obvious to Honorable
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: Members opposite that Great Britain could not possi engage in
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: a major military adventure without involving our NATO allies. Was
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: it not very clear if we did contemplate any adventure
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: at all, that it would have to be in conjunction
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: with them. No, it is a sad and bitter story.
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: We hope that at least one beneficial byproduct of it
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: will be a settlement of the Cypress question very soon. Indeed,
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: now I would conclude by saying this, I do not
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: believe that any of us yet, I say, any of
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: us yet have realized the complete change that has taken
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: place in the relationship between nations and between governments and peoples.
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: These were objectives, I do beg Honorable Members to reflect
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: that were not realizable by the means that we adopted.
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: These civil, social, and political objectives in modern society are
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: not attainable by armed force. Even if we had occupied
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: Egypt by armed force, we could not have secured the
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: freedom of passage through the canal. It is clear that
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: there is such xenophobia, that there is such passion, that
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: there is such bitter feeling against Western imperialism. Rightly or wrongly,
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: I am not arguing the merits at the moment among
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: millions of people that they are not prepared to keep
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: the arteries of European commerce alive and intact if they
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: themselves want to cut them. We could not keep ships
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: going through the canal. The canal is too easily sabotaged
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: if Egypt wants to sabotage it. Why on earth did
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: we imagine that the objectives could be realized in that
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: way in the middle of the twentieth century. The social
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: furniture of modern society is so complicated and fragile that
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: it cannot support the jackboot. We cannot run the process
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: of modern society by attempting to impose our will upon
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: nations by armed force, if we have not learned, and
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: that we have learned nothing. Therefore, from our point of
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: view here whatever may have been the morality of the
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: government's action, and about that there is no doubt. There
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: is no doubt about its imbecility. There is not the
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: slightest shadow of doubt that we have attempted to use
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: the methods which were bound to destroy the objectives we had,
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: and of course this is what we have discovered. I
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: commend to honorable Members, if they have not seen it,
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: a very fine cartoon in punch by Illingworth and called
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: Desert Victory. There we see a black, ominous, sinister background
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: and a pipeline broken, pouring oil into the desert sands.
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: How on earth do honorable Members opposite imagine that hundreds
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: of miles of pipeline can be kept open if the
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: Arabs do not want it to be kept open. It
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: is enough to say that there are large numbers of
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: Arabs who want the pipeline to be kept open because
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: as they live by it. It has been proved over
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: and over again now in the modern world that men
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: and women are often prepared to put up with material
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: losses for things they really think worthwhile. It has been
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: shown in Budapest, and it could be shown in the
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: Middle East. That is why I beg honorable Members to
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: turn their backs on this most ugly chapter and realize
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: that if we are to live in the world and
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: are to be regarded as a decent nation, decent citizens
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: in the world. We have to act up to different
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: standards than the one that we have been following in
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: the last few weeks. I resent most bitterly this unconcerned
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: for the lives of innocent men and women. It may
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: be that the dead in port said are one hundred,
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: two hundred or three hundred. If it is only one,
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: we had no business to take it. Do honorable members
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: begin to realize how this is going to revolt the
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: world when it passes into the imagination of men and
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: women everywhere, and in this country, that we with eight
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: million here in London, the biggest single civilian target in
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: the world, with our crowded island exposed as no nation
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: in the world is exposed to the barbarism of modern weapons,
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: we ourselves set the example. We ourselves can script our
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: boys and put guns and aeroplanes in their hands and
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: say bomb there. Really, this is so appalling that human
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: language can hardly describe it. And for what the government
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: resorted to epic weapons for squalid and trivial ends. And
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: that is why all through this unhappy period, ministers, all
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: of them, have spoken and argued and debated well below
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: their proper form, because they have been synthetic villains. They
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: are not really villains. They have only set off on
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: a villainous course, and they cannot even use the language
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: of villany. Therefore, in conclusion, I say that it is
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: no use, Honorable Members, consoling themselves that they have more
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: support in the country than many of them feared they
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: might have. Of course they have support in the country.
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: They have support among many of the unthinking and unreflective,
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: who still react to traditional values, who still think that
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: we can solve all these problems in the old ways.
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: Of course they have not. All the human race has
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: grown to adult state yet. But do not let them
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: take comfort in that thought. The right Honorable Member for
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: Woodford has warned them before. In the first volume of
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: his Second World War, he writes about the situation before
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: the war, and he says this, Thus, an administration more
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: disastrous than any in our history, saw all its errors
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: and shortcomings acclaimed by the nation. There was, however, a
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: bill to be paid, and it took the new House
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: of Commons nearly ten years to pay it. It will
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: take as many years to live down what we have done.
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: It will take as many years to pay the price.
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: I know that tomorrow evening honorable and right honorable members will,
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: probably as they have done before, give the government a
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: vote of confidence. But they know in their heart of
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: hearts that it is a vote which the government do
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: not deserve. End of speech.