Was It War ?
Mr Herbert Morrison: I am obliged to the Rt Honourable Gentleman for his statement. I know it would be the wish of all my Honourable friends on the Opposition benches that we should associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy with the relatives of those killed or injured in these incidents. I have only one question, or at the most two, to put to the Rt Hon Gentleman. We 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 Rt Hon Gentleman also whether the Police concerned had warning from the British Authorities, so that they had the opportunity voluntarily to take action that was desired before active hostilities began?"Egypt - Terrorist Activities"
Mr Anthony Eden: Yes 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 through the Secretary of State for War, to give a detailed account of what happened and how it was handed. I have been into the full account myself very carefully, and I am satisfied that everything that could humanely be done, was done, to try and avoid the clash that eventually occurred.
Mr Harold Davies: Are His Majesty's Government making every effort to re-open 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 the Americans into the Canal Zone, was the Diplomacy of a caveman? Is the Rt 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 at that point?
Mr Anthony Eden: In reply to the first part of the Hon Gentlemans question, I have very carefully chosen the words of my statement. After giving a good deal of thought of how to present it at this time, and I think I would rather stand on those words, so far as His Majesty's Government is concerned. As regards to the second part of the question, I have yet to learn that sharing a burden is other than a Christian virtue.
Mr John Hynd: I am sure that most Honourable members sympathise with the position 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 Honourable members and people outside will be completely reconciled about the action that was taken against Police Headquarters on the statement that has made. It is 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 the Suez area to initiate action against any 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 taken action against them, but could the Rt Hon Gentleman give us any information as to the basis upon which we can claim the right to initiate action of this kind?
Mr Anthony Eden: I 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 our legitimate duties. I am willing to answer any question on the paper about this, and 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 have to have the protection which is their right under the Treaty we cannot limit Commanders to taking action against Terrorist Organisations which are not carrying on a proper war, but perhaps something worse, which is this type of war.
Mr Aneurin Bevan: Is 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 weapons used in the attack on the Police Headquarters. In view of the fact that we 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 Anthony Eden: As regards individual action, naturally the Government takes 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 Member to consider whether, if the operation had been dragged out longer, and if smaller weapons had throughout been used, the loss would not have been much heavier? Personally I have not the slightest doubt it would have been.
There you have it, but in the case of MPs of the time they show a lack of concern for the lives of British Servicemen and more concern for the persons opposing us. One wonders who's side they were on.
Jock Marrs and Richard Woolley
