U.S. Charged by Eden with Preventing Peaceful Solution of Suez Issue

Former British Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden today accused the United States of preventing the peaceful solution of the 1956 Suez Canal crisis.

The former British leader made the charges in the first installment of his copyrighted “Memoirs,” published in the February issue of McCall’s magazine. He accused the Eisenhower Administration of:

1. Subordinating America’s Middle East responsibilities to the Administration’s primary concern with winning the 1956 national elections.

2. Failing to appreciate the international implications of the Suez Canal seizure by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

3. Scuttling allied attempts to pressure Nasser by economic means to reopen the canal for international use.

The U.S. actions and statements, the British statesman asserted, gave Nasser the “trump cards.” They allowed him to continue confidently to defy allied pressure, Sir Anthony said, because the U.S. had taken the “teeth” out of such pressures.

Because of State Department policies, Nasser was also encouraged to step up Egyptian threats and “fedayeen” border raids against Israel, Sir Anthony said, Israel’s response–invasion of the Sinai desert–was “necessary,” he stressed. He attacked the U.S. for moving quickly in the United Nations to brand Israel the aggressor.

If Israel had not acted, he commented, it might not “be a free nation today.” And he added: “The marked victim of the garroter is not to be condemned if he strikes out before the noose is round his throat.”

Clearing up a matter of much historical speculation, Sir Anthony said the allies carefully planned how they would react if Israel attacked Egypt. But, he contended in McCalls, they were neither informed by, nor coordinated military strategy with, Israel in advance.

The situation had become so “terrible,” he said, that there was even the possibility that Britain would be allied in such a war with Nassor and the Soviet Union against France and Israel. For Britain had a treaty obligation to defend Jordan in the event that nation was attacked, he explained. Since many “fedayeen” raids originated in Jordan, he said, there was a distinct possibility Israel might invade the neighboring Arab nation.

The Allies did not consult the U.S. before invading the Sues area, Sir Anthony admitted. But, he explained, the investment could only have been effective if launched immediately, and the allies did not have time for another round of discussions with the U.S. But “the course of the Sues Canal crisis was decided by the American attitude to it,” he added.