EDEN MEMOIRS
SIR,—Reading Ian Gilmour's article on the Eden Memoirs I could not help thinking how difficult it is for the opponents of Suez to deploy their attack without appearing to exculpate Colonel Nasser. Of course, there were plenty of things wrong with Suez— the military deficiencies, the circumstances of the intervention, above all, perhaps, Eden's exaggerated estimate of Nasser. Yet two salient points should never be forgotten. First. Nasser's nationalisation of the Canal Company involved the violation of an international agreement. Secondly, the Israeli in- vasion of Sinai was primarily caused by Egypt's deliberate and brutal provocation. These two factors are surely essential to a real understanding of the Suez question, and for Mr. Gilmour to have written a two-page article without once mentioning either of them is indeed a remarkable achievement.
Judged in their light, Mr. Dulles's conduct appears far less statesmanlike than Mr. Gilmour seems to assume. After all, it was Mr. Dulles who talked about Nasser being made to 'disgorge.' It was Mr. Dulles who recommended the eighteen-power proposals to the first London Conference. Finally, it was Mr. Dulles who invented the Users' Club on the ground that it would, hurt Nasser just as much as the implementation of the original proposals. If all this was simply rodomontade then his subsequent defec- tion is explicable if not excusable. But, if at one time he meant what he said we must look elsewhere for an explanation. Perhaps one can be found in the fact that 1956 was Election Year in the United States and that any talk, let alone use, of force hardly fitted in with the spurious atmosphere of peace and
prosperity which the Republican Party at that tinic was so intent on spreading.
With regard to die Israeli invasion of Sinai the American attitude was a perfect example of that ? legalistic-moralistic approach to world affairs which Mr. George Kennan has attacked so brilliantly. How' ever legally impeccable and superficially virtuous. the United States resolution in the Security Council branding Israel as the aggressor in effect turned morality upside down. Never was the use of the veto so abundantly justified. In the face of the fedaycca
raids any attempt to use the 1950 Declaration would have had the same result. This is not to say that
Eden and Mollet were right to intervene. Today as in 1956 Nasser is trying to goad Israel into a preventive war. If he succeeds I hope that no outside Power Will again intervene to save him from reaping his whirl- wind.—Yours faithfully,
423 Oxford Road, Manchester, 13
Previous page
