"Beyond" the committee members' expectations, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland seemed to be abnormally silent at the conference, adopting a passive stance on all issues. As a permanent member of the United Nations, a key player in the Canal conflict, and a significant global member, the UK not only failed to actively participate in discussions and negotiations during the conference but, on the contrary, had very low involvement. According to statistics, as of November 7th, the UK delegate spoke only 12 times in the entire seven-day conference. Compared to actively participating countries, Israel spoke 27 times, France 29 times, and the United States an astonishing 40 times.

"We didn't stay silent! We have reached many consensuss with other countries in the past few days!" The delegate grumpily stated. In accordance with the data, however, the number of times the UK spoke was far less than other major nations at the conference. So why does the UK representative assert such excessive confidence in claiming active participation?

In addition, all actions and policies of the UK, even decisions regarding war and ceasefire, closely followed those of France. The UK stated, "Our position happens to be exactly the same as France's." But can having a similar position serve as an excuse for silence and inaction?

To make matters worse, the UK, originally one of the builders and stakeholders of the Suez Canal, had lost its control of the Canal, and eventually lost all its stake and control over the canal due to its failure to defend its interests.

"Why do you always do nothing but follow France’s steps? Aren’t the UK and France two independent countries? Or are you suggesting that the UK is second to France?" In the press conference, the reporter questioned the delegate of the UK. However, the UK responded with mumbles and vague words. It is even suspected that the UK did not comprehensively understand the questions raised.

“Active” as it proclaimed, the UK’s indifference toward the urgent issues discussed in the conference is so apparent. Undoubtedly, the UK has lost its international standing in the General Assembly.

Tension ensues within the meeting's atmosphere. In the very first start, the delegate of Israel proposed an eloquent speech, standing in a solid position that Israel will never cease-fire, compromise, or allow room for negotiations. Also, Israel strongly condemned Egypt's behavior about depriving Israel's rights.

"Given the global concern over the Suez Canal crisis, Is Israel open to engaging with the international community and participating in multilateral efforts to find a peaceful solution?" The delegate of Turkey questioned Israel. "Nothing can stop Israel from protecting itself. This is a self defense action." Israel firmly responded. Israel stated three principles, “no ceasefire, no compromise, no negotiation”, in the working paper 1.1. These principles have led to the consensus, ”NO Israel”, at the conference.

France and the UK, despite being condemned by most countries, insisted on their participation in the Canal region, opposing that Egypt take control of the Canal. "We are worried whether Egypt will control the Canal well." Also, as the original stakeholders of the Canal, the two countries put much emphasis on the profits from the Canal. France stated they will not compromise on their interests and that they will insist on retaining control over the canal. "We will not ceasefire," said the delegate of France.

"The Suez Canal is part of Egypt's territory." Said the delegate of Egypt with an uncertain tone. Being exploited by France and the UK, Egypt seems to be emotionally collapsed. However, after Saudi Arabia and USSR aggressively negotiated with Egypt, the delegate then recognized its legitimacy in terms of nationalization. Egypt then reiterated its sovereignty within its own territory, and reaffirmed that it should take full control of the Canal.

Afterwards, France stood with the UK, in regard to profits, urging Egypt to provide them with 20% of the annual revenue to "compensate" for the loss resulting from collecting tolls. However, on 26 July 1956, the Egyptian government offered full economic compensation to the shareholder, namely, France and the UK. It seems that the delegates of France and the UK have already somehow forgotten the compensation three months ago. It can't be more obvious that the UK and France transformed themselves from stakeholders to beggars, appearing to be craving for the money from Egypt to rebuild their countries after WWII.

Simultaneously, military actions by the United Kingdom and France in the canal area have also sparked humanitarian controversies. The official statement from ICRC indicated that indiscriminate attacks have caused severe destruction to critical infrastructure and has resulted in hundreds of lives lost and thousands of individuals sustaining life-threatening injuries. Despite having made public announcements for their behavior, "They are not sincere. Although the UK and France helped build the Suez Canal, Saudi Arabia suspects that it is for their own interests."

The negotiation today ended up in stagnation, still reaching NO consensus on ceasefire and the justifiability of the nationalization of the Canal. Will the consultation come in peace? Please stay in tune!

The conference began on an "unprecedented" scale. Delegates around the world gathered at the Emergency Special Session to debate the Suez Crisis. In the first place, while most countries agreed to the ceasefire, Israel insisted on deploying armed forces for the purpose of self-defense.

After clarifying the position of every country, the conference swiftly discussed the Nationalization of the Suez Canal. Egypt, with its geographical location, stated that they insisted on nationalization with their country’s revenue in consideration. France and the UK, as the main builders and organizers of the Canal, also wanted to benefit from the tax charged to the passing vessels.

"If Egypt DO GOOD in controlling the Canal, they can keep control of it, and vice versa.", said the delegate of the UK.

According to their subsequent answer in the press conference, only under the circumstances that Egypt moderately collects tolls will they agree on Egypt's jurisdiction.

On the other hand, France strongly asserted the intervention of the Canal operation. With its country’s interests prioritized, France was desperate to take funds from the Canal. As the original founder of the Canal, France stated that the mandatory nationalization of Canal operation in Egypt was unreasonable.

“We may consider temporarily letting France control the Canal. And after they have earned enough money, we can take back the Canal then,” said the delegate of Egypt.

After The UK and France decided to cease fire, Egypt intentionally ignored the letter of declaration, saying "I didn't see the letter." In spite of the fact that the letter had announced the truce line to be set ten miles east of the Canal, the delegate of Egypt did not stand up for their own territory. Instead, the delegate remained silent and inactive.

On 2 November 1956, the president of the French Council, Guy Mollet, was fed up with the slow negotiation process, and announced the statement at 4:00 p.m., “The slowness of its procedure would make this decision unwise when immediate repercussions are to be feared.” The UK, also concerning their commercial benefits influenced by the Suez Canal, jointly sent troops to Egypt. With state-of-the-art weapons and fierce airstrikes, both countries want to compulsorily seize back control of the Suez Canal.

Nevertheless, the delegate of Egypt conveyed her dissatisfaction with the inefficiency of the conference regardless of her absence.

France stated at the conference this afternoon, “France is just trying to get the Canal under control, we don’t mean harming any civilians,” which is totally ridiculous. How can a war proceed without injuring anyone? When asked about the question of peace and human acts, the delegate simply said “We are just to ensure the safety and peace of the Canal region.” It seems that France considered dropping bombs from the air a harmless measure.

Through fierce debates, there seems to be no consensus reached on the conference. One bloc, led by the USA and Saudi Arabia, requested Franco-British coalition forces to withdraw from Egypt as soon as possible. On the other hand, the other bloc, led by the UK, France, and Israel, insisted that this was an efficient way to retrieve peace in the Middle East. Eventually, the USA and Saudi Arabia obtained support from the USSR, Turkey, and so on. Therefore, the DD asking for withdrawal finally passed by the special session. Nevertheless, the session didn’t have the right of constraint, so the military action wouldn’t stop despite the DD. Let’s see what will happen at the conference tomorrow. Would France and the UK abide by the Draft Directive or keep posing a threat to the lives of Egyptians? Please stay in tune!

Anonymous Comment