The Clock Watchers

Under the eyes of a roomful of grave-faced spectators, the eleven delegates to the U.N. Security Council sat down late one morning last week around a semicircular table, to decide what the U.N. ought to do about the Israeli invasion of Egypt. Scarcely had they begun their deliberations when Soviet Delegate Arkady Sobolev scurried from the room. Returning a moment later, he self-righteously read out to his colleagues an A.P. dispatch: "Britain and France declared today their forces will occupy key positions in the Suez Canal area unless Israelis and Egyptians stop fighting within twelve hours."

A shocked murmur ran through the Council chamber. Suavely, British Delegate Sir Pierson Dixon rose to announce that he trusted that "the great majority of my colleagues will agree that the action taken is in ... the interest of security and peace." He hoped that U.S. Delegate Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. "will agree that nothing would be gained" by consideration of the U.S. resolution asking Israel to withdraw immediately from Egypt.

Allies at Odds. In cold anger, Lodge hastily added a proviso to the U.S. resolution urging all U.N. members "to refrain from giving any military, economic or financial assistance to Israel so long as it has not complied with this resolution." In presenting the resolution to the Council, Lodge spoke with bluntness rare towards allies. The U.S., he said, does not believe that "in any circumstances this [Anglo-French] ultimatum would be justifiable or ... consistent with the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter." In the debate that followed, the U.N.'s familiar two-sided world came unstuck. Sobolev eagerly announced that "the Soviet delegation is prepared to vote in favor of the U.S. draft resolution . . ." When the vote came, Britain and France, the two historic allies of the U.S.. vetoed the U.S. proposal. It was Britain's first veto.

By then the twelve-hour time limit on the Anglo-French ultimatum had nearly expired. Spectators were turning uneasily to the Council chamber's big wall clock. Russia's Sobolev proposed a watered-down resolution calling upon Israel and Egypt to cease fire. Once again, Britain and France vetoed.

In a tone of near despair, Yugoslavia's hard-voiced Joza Brilej told his colleagues: "We are faced with a situation . . . which is literally deteriorating by the minute." Then he persuaded the necessary minimum of seven Security Council members to vote for an emergency session of the 76-nation General Assembly, where the veto does not apply.

With Heavy Heart. "Egypt," its delegate, Omar Loutfi, told the Assembly, "has been subject to combined aggression --premeditated aggression--by Israel, the United Kingdom and France." Indignantly, Britain's Dixon rejected the charge of collusion. His nation was only trying "to separate the combatants" and to protect the Suez Canal; its occupation would be strictly "temporary." (Poland's delegate dryly remarked that Britain had made a new contribution to international law--"temporary aggression.")

Dixon was followed by John Foster Dulles, who had flown in from Washington. "I doubt," began Dulles, "that any delegate ever spoke from this forum with as heavy a heart. We speak on a matter of vital importance where the U.S. finds itself unable to agree with three nations with whom it has ties . . . and two of whom constitute our oldest, most trusted and reliable allies." In dramatic demonstration of the depth of the disagreement, he proposed, on behalf of the U.S., a resolution urging "all parties now involved in hostilities" in the Middle East to cease fire and stop all troop movements.

When the roll was finally called at 2:30 in the morning, 64 nations voted in favor of Dulles' resolution. Six nations, including a troubled Canada, abstained. Britain, France and Israel could muster up only two other votes--Australia and New Zealand--against the ceasefire.

New Menace. But any cease-fire depended utterly on the Anglo-French, and they were unwilling to halt action until they had achieved their goal of grabbing the Canal Zone from Egypt. They might be willing to accept a U.N. police force in the Canal Zone if everyone else agreed, but their conditions were in fact a refusal.

In emergency session, the General Assembly voted (57 to 0, with 19 nations abstaining) to authorize Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold to raise an "emergency international U.N. force" of volunteers to police the peace in the Middle East. At U.S. urging, the Assembly specified that the volunteers had to come from small powers. Little more than 24 hours later Hammarskjold was able to report offers from eight small nations.

While their diplomats delayed, the British and French continued the fighting hoping to confront the U.N. with a result it could not undo. Then the Soviet Union moved in massively. Moscow proposed that the U.S. and Russia jointly send forces to police the Suez area. This was "unthinkable" to the U.S.--and to others as well. Summoned (this time by Russia) into their fourth night emergency session in a row, the U.N. Security Council refused to consider the plan. Even rejected, however, the Soviet move added to the danger. Only a few hours later, the Egyptians were inviting "volunteers," and Radio Moscow carried the call. Unless West ern powers hastily rejoined ranks and brought Egyptian fighting to a quick end, they were confronted with the menace of armed Russian intrusion into the Middle East. Out of this awareness came this week's cease-fire agreement.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.