Peacekeeping Operations Along Suez Canal Possible Only if Parties Involved Agree

Ambassador Seymour M. Finger of the United States Mission to the United Nations said today that UN peacekeeping operations along the Suez Canal could not be effective if any of the parties are “determined not to respect” the cease-fire. He said it was “essential” to the success of such operations that those involved in the dispute “want the peace kept.” Mr. Finger, a panelist at a convocation of the United Nations Association of the United States of America (UNA-USA), did not refer specifically to Egypt’s demand for the removal of UN observers prior to the Six-Day War. Mr. Finger, expressing “probably unwarranted optimism,” estimated that U.S.-Soviet agreement on peacekeeping regulations had less than a 50-50 chance of occurring by fall. But he noted that in January his estimate was 20-1. Maj.-Gen. Indar J. Rikhye of India, former military adviser to the UN Secretary General, said Gen. Odd Bull, chief of the UN’s Suez observers, has “very good reason to complain” about the lack of overall peacekeeping guidelines. He said there was a “division” among the great powers on such guidelines, but added that the U.S. endeavors were “most encouraging.” Agreement on the necessity for a viable worldwide UN peacekeeping operation was voiced by Cyrus R. Vance, former Deputy Defense Secretary and Kingman Brewster Jr., president of Yale University. Mr. Brewster added that President Nixon should make UN peacekeeping “an important part and cornerstone of American foreign policy.” The Soviet representative, Deputy UN Ambassador Lev Isaakovich Mendelevich, cancelled his appearance, citing the press of business.