John Foster Dulles: Address to the United Nations on the Suez Crisis

Document Text

I doubt that any delegate ever spoke from this forum with as heavy a heart as I have brought here tonight. We speak on a matter of vital importance, where the United States finds itself unable to agree with three nations with whom it has ties, deep friendship, admiration and respect, and two of whom constitute our oldest, most trusted and reliable allies.…

What are the facts that bring us here?

There is, first of all, the fact that there occurred beginning last Monday a deep penetration of Egypt by Israeli forces. Then, quickly following up upon this action, there came action by France and the United Kingdom in subjecting Egypt first to a 12-hour ultimatum and then to armed attack, which is now going on from the air with the declared purpose of gaining temporary control of the Suez Canal, presumably to make it more secure.

Then there is the third fact that the matter, having been brought to the Security Council, was sought to be dealt with by a resolution which was vetoed by the United Kingdom and by France, which cast the only dissenting votes against the resolution. Thereupon, under the provisions of the Uniting for Peace resolution, the matter came here under a call from the Secretary General, instituted by a vote of seven members of the Security Council, requiring that this Assembly convene in emergency session within 24 hours.…

We are not blind, Mr. President, to the fact that what has happened in the last two or three days comes out of a murky background. But we have come to the conclusion that these provocations, serious as they are, cannot justify the resort to armed force which has occurred within the last two and three days, and which is going on tonight.…

But, Mr. President, if we were to agree that the existence of injustices in the world, which this organization so far has been unable to cure, means that the principle of renunciation of force is no longer respected, and that there still exists the right wherever a nation feels itself subject to injustice to resort to force to try to correct that injustice, then, Mr. President, we would have, I fear, torn this Charter into shreds and the world would again be a world of anarchy. And all the great hopes that are placed in this organization and in our Charter would have vanished and we would be as we were, when World War II began, with only another tragic failure in place of what we hoped would be—and still can hope will be—a barrier against the recurrence of a world war which, as our Preamble says, has “twice in our lifetime … brought untold sorrow to mankind.…”

It is animated by such considerations, Mr. President, that the United States has introduced a resolution which I should like to read to you: …

“Noting the disregard on many occasions by parties to the Israel-Arab Armistice Agreements of 1948 of the terms of such agreements, and that the armed forces of Israel have penetrated deeply into Egyptian territory in violation of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel; Noting that armed forces of France and the United Kingdom are conducting military operations against Egyptian territory;

Noting that traffic through the Suez Canal is now interrupted to the serious prejudice of many nations;

Expressing its grave concern over these developments:

1. Urges as a matter of priority that all parties now involved in hostilities in the area agree to an immediate cease-fire and as part thereof halt the movement of military forces and arms into the area;

2. Urges the parties to the Armistice Agreements promptly to withdraw all forces behind the Armistice lines, to desist from raids across the Armistice lines into neighboring territory, and to observe scrupulously the provisions of the Armistice Agreements;

3. Recommends that all members refrain from introducing military goods in the area of hostilities and in general refrain from any acts which would delay or prevent the implementation of this resolution;

4. Urges that upon the cease-fire being effective steps be taken to reopen the Suez Canal and restore secure freedom of navigation;

5. Requests the Secretary General to observe and promptly report on the compliance with this resolution, to the Security Council and to the General Assembly, for such further action as they may deem appropriate in accordance with the Charter;

6. Decides to remain in emergency session pending compliance with this resolution.”

That, Mr. President, is the proposal of the United States Delegation.…

I have said and deeply believe that peace is a coin which has two sides—one of which is the avoidance of the use of force and the other is the creation of conditions of justice—and in the long run you cannot expect one without the other.

I do not by the form of this resolution want to seem in any way to believe that this situation can be adequately taken care of merely by the steps that are in this resolution. There needs to be something better than the uneasy armistices which have existed now for these eight years between Israel and the Arab neighbors; there needs to be a greater sense of confidence and security in the free and equal operation of the Canal than has existed since three months ago when President Nasser seized the Suez Canal Company. These things I regard of the utmost importance.…

I fear that if we do not act and act promptly, and if we do not act with sufficient unanimity of opinion so that our recommendations carry a real influence, there is great danger that what is started and what has been called a police action may develop into something which is far more grave. Even if that does not happen, the apparent impotence of this organization to deal with this situation may set a precedent which will lead other nations to attempt to take into their own hands the remedying of what they believe to be their injustices. If that happens, the future is dark indeed.

We thought when we wrote the Charter in San Francisco in 1945 that we had seen perhaps the worst in war, that our task was to prevent a recurrence of what had been, and indeed what then had been was tragic enough. But now we know that what can be will be infinitely more tragic than what we saw in World War II.