§ The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden)With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to give some account of recent events in Egypt.
From the earliest days of the tension in the Canal Zone His Majesty's Forces in that area have at all times done their utmost to avoid conflict with the Egyptian authorities. The increase of terrorist activities, however, supported in many cases by detachments of the auxiliary Egyptian police, compelled His Majesty's Government to act if the security of the Canal Zone of the British base and of our forces themselves was to be preserved.
I wish to give the House some account of the nature and activities of these auxiliary police. This force was not introduced into the Canal Zone until after the late Egyptian Government had denounced the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 in October last. It was supposed to be charged with the task of assisting the regular police to preserve law and order. In fact, its energies were mainly directed to intimidating Egyptian labour employed by His Majesty's Forces, and later to conniving at and taking part in terrorist activities against our forces, many of which resulted in the deaths of British soldiers.
Urgent representations were made to the Egyptian authorities on several occasions both by His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo and by the British military authorities in the Canal Zone about the activities of these auxiliary police. His Majesty's Embassy addressed four written notes about this to the Egyptian Government; on 24th November, on 5th December, on 15th December and on 19th January. On at least four occasions also His Majesty's Ambassador made oral 35 representations to Egyptian Ministers, and General Erskine several times brought these activities to the attention of the local Egyptian authorities. We urged that these companies, which had never previously been armed with rifles but only with staves, should be disarmed or withdrawn.
The late Egyptian Government paid no heed to these representations. It is on the contrary only too clear that so far from wishing to prevent armed clashes with the British Forces, they were actively concerned to provoke them. This produced a critical situation at Ismailia in view of the military measures which had to be taken there to round up the terrorists. The British Commander, therefore, had no alternative but to disarm the auxiliary police. The latter had explicit instructions from the then Egyptian Government to resist, and consequently General Erskine had no option but to use force. In this, and indeed throughout, he had full authority and support from His Majesty's Government.
In the course of the action which followed one officer and three other ranks of His Majesty's Forces lost their lives and 13 others were wounded. Unconfirmed figures of Egyptian casualties are 42 killed and 58 wounded. This tragic event, which we all deplore, has brought sorrow to many homes, both in Britain and Egypt. It has, however, done nothing to diminish the ability and determination of His Majesty's Government to maintain their rights under the Treaty of 1936 until such time as a new agreement to replace that Treaty can be reached.
On Saturday last a serious outbreak of rioting took place in Cairo. I deeply regret to have to inform the House that in the course of these riots at least eight British lives were lost, including that of the Canadian Trade Commissioner in Cairo. I am sure the House will wish me to express its profound sympathy with their relatives no less than with those of the British soldiers who lost their lives. At the same time, the House will wish me to express a sense of horror at the atrocities which the former Egyptian Government was unable to prevent and which were the direct consequence of their policy of inciting the population to acts of violence.
36 I regret also to have to report that very considerable damage was done during these riots to British and other foreign property in Cairo. Order was restored only after the Egyptian Army had been called upon to intervene. His Majesty's Ambassador addressed a Note to the Egyptian Government on the 27th January, informing them on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Canada and in the United Kingdom that the Egyptian Government will be held fully responsible for all loss of life and property, and that the rights of His Majesty's Governments in that connection are fully reserved.
Meanwhile I take note that the new Egyptian Prime Minister has declared that his Government's first task will be the restoration of law and order and the protection of life and property, foreign as well as Egyptian.
I wish now to make a few observations of a more general character about the present state of Anglo-Egyptian relations.
One of the worst features of recent events in the Canal Zone is that unscrupulous men have sought to turn what is in some cases no doubt genuine national sentiment into terrorist activities. I have always believed that it should be possible to find a solution of the differences between this country and Egypt which satisfies the legitimate national aspirations of the Egyptian people, and at the same time does not jeopardise the security of the free world. In a Note to the Egyptian Government on 6th November, 1951, we stated that His Majesty's Government were willing, as their predecessors had been, to enter into negotiations at any time for a revision of the Treaty of 1936, under the procedure set forth in Articles 8 and 16 of that Treaty. In my speech to the House on the 19th November I repeated that offer. It still stands.
It is the aim of His Majesty's Government to reach agreement on arrangements for the adequate defence of the Canal Zone which would meet legitimate Egyptian aspirations. We fully accept that this is by no means exclusively an Anglo-Egyptian interest, but one in which we have an international responsibility.
In these last weeks there have been many violent episodes with their accompanying loss of human life. The memory of them, bitter though it must be in both 37 countries, should not prevent us from looking and working towards a better future. It remains our hope that passions will cool and that it will then be possible to reach a settlement in which each side will respect the sincerity of the other's point of view.
§ Mr. Herbert MorrisonI am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I know that it would be the wish of all my hon. Friends on the Opposition benches that we should associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy with the relatives of those who have been killed or injured in these incidents. I have only one question—or at the most two—to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
We can take it, I presume, that the action at Ismailia with regard to the police was specifically authorised by His Majesty's Government. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman also whether the police concerned had warning from the British authorities, so that they had an opportunity voluntarily to take the action that was desired before active hostilities began.
§ Mr. EdenYes, Sir, that action was definitely authorised by His Majesty's Government, and not only one warning but repeated warnings were given to the Egyptian authorities, and on the spot. I should be quite willing, if the House desired—or more properly perhaps through the Secretary of State for War—to give a detailed account of what happened and how it was handled. I have been into the full account myself very carefully, and I am satisfied that everything that could humanly have been done was done to try to avoid the clash that eventually occurred.
§ Mr. Harold DaviesAre His Majesty's Government making every effort to reopen discussions on the 1936 Treaty under Articles 8 and 16? Secondly, are His Majesty's Government aware that the diplomacy of the Prime Minister in the United States, by inviting Americans into the Canal Zone, was the diplomacy of a cave man? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his policy exacerbated the Moslem world? Lastly, may I ask the Foreign Secretary if he has reviewed the possibilities of moving the base from there to the Israeli State and of getting discussions with the Israeli State on that point?
§ Mr. EdenIn reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have very carefully chosen the words of my statement, after giving a good deal of thought about how to present it at this time, and I think I would rather stand on those words, so far as the position of His Majesty Government is concerned. As regards the second part of the question, I have yet to learn that sharing a burden is other than a Christian virtue.
§ Mr. John HyndI am sure that most hon. Members will sympathise with the position in which General Erskine finds himself, and will agree to a great extent with what has been said by the Foreign Secretary. I am not so satisfied that all hon. Members and people outside will be completely reconciled about the action that was taken against police headquarters on the statement that has been made.
Is it not the case that we are, I believe rightly, holding our position in the Canal Zone in accordance with our rights under the Treaty until those rights have been altered by agreement? If that is so, are we authorised under any right that we may hold in the Suez area to initiate action against any official body, even though some members of that body may have been suspected, or proved, to have taken part in acts of terrorism against British troops? I am sure that no one could object to any action that may have been taken by our forces against anyone proven to have been taking action against them, but can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to the basis upon which we claim the right to initiate an action of this kind?
§ Mr. EdenI think that there is no dispute in any part of the House that we base ourselves on the Treaty of 1936, nor any dispute as to the obligation which that Treaty lays upon us. It has been clear for some time that these auxiliary police were, instead of being police, deliberately inciting and encouraging, and taking part in, terrorism against our forces which are carrying out their legitimate duties. I am willing to answer any Question on the paper about this, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of trouble was taken to try to avoid this kind of situation. If our troops are to have the protection which is their right under the Treaty we cannot limit commanders to taking action against terrorist 39 organisations which are not carrying on a proper war but perhaps something rather worse, which is this type of war.
§ Sir Herbert WilliamsIs this a debate or a Question?
§ Mr. SpeakerI can allow only one more supplementary question on this matter. I must point out that we are to have a foreign affairs debate next week. Some of the sentiments that have been expressed have been more suitable for debate than for Question time.
§ Mr. Aneurin BevanIs the Foreign Secretary aware that these collisions between British forces and the civilian population of Egypt jeopardise the value of the base as a military base for us in any event? Were the Government aware of, and did they authorise, the character of the weapons used in the attack on the police headquarters? In view of the fact that we are to have a foreign affairs debate, will there be a White Paper giving details of the incident so that we can discuss it more intelligently?
§ Mr. EdenAs regards individual action, naturally the Government take full responsibility for any action taken at that time. As regards weapons used, I should be willing to deal with that point. I would only say this now: that also, I know, was carefully considered from every point of view, including, in particular, that of loss of life. I would only ask any hon. Member to consider whether, if the operations had been dragged out longer or if smaller weapons had throughout been used, the loss of life would not have been very much heavier? Personally, I have not the slightest doubt that it would have been.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot continue this discussion any further.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe are to have a foreign affairs debate next week