KAMALIKA PIERIS
Revised 2.4.21
Bandaranaike
took firm decisions where international relations were concerned. This essay
looks at his handling of several important issues which arose in 1956.
ISRAEL
Bandaranaike
recognized Israel, though he had reservations. Bandaranaike told Parliament,
the position is that the previous Government had agreed to diplomatic
representation by Israel here, I presume, with the implication of our
representation there.
When I assumed office the Israel Government,
kept on pressing us to find out whether they could send their Representative
here as the previous Government had decided. The British High Commission as
pressing for it. Therefore I agreed.
Besides the
pressure from the British side, there could have been other reasons for
Bandaranaike’s decision to open diplomatic relations with Israel, said Bandu de
Silva. India had already accorded diplomatic recognition. Israel was building
up a socialist state. Its Kibbutz system even attracted the attention of the local
left leadership. Israel had supported Ceylon’s entry into the U.N.
Bandaranaike ordered
that diplomatic missions be exchanged and asked the Permanent Secretary to
appoint H.A.J. Hulugalle, Ambassador to Rome to be concurrently accredited to
Tel Aviv. The Arab League issued a
strong protest and a threat to boycott Ceylon tea, so Bandaranaike stopped Hulugalle
from proceeding to Tel Aviv. I have laid
it by, said Bandaranaike to Parliament. Israel however had already opened its
diplomatic mission in Colombo.
Bandaranaike
had his own views on the creation of Israel. Personally, if you ask me, the
much wiser course should have been, that these Jews, should have been absorbed
into those countries in which they were settled and of which they had become citizens,
as citizens of those countries and treated fairly and justly so that they would
have been able to make their great contributions to the national lives of those
countries.
However, the Balfour Declaration recognized
publicly this sentimental claim of theirs to return to their homeland after
nearly 2,000 years. At the same time, it must be remembered there are about a million
Arabs who are refugees, about a million of them, driven out of their homeland.
Now let us
understand the position of the Arab countries too, what they feel about this
Jewish State established in a narrow, barren strip of land, containing roughly
less than a million people, about a million and a half, supported by
international Jewry with finance, with the political power wielded in those
great countries where the people of their race are still filling important and
distinguished places, with brains, with industry, with money and most modern
equipment.
The Arabs
feel that this Jewish State planted in this way in their midst would prove of
great danger to their independence and their freedom because Israel is bound to
expand. She just cannot help
herself. Circumstances will make necessary
for the present Israelites to expand what with the powers they have and their
ability, backed by all these international forces.
The Jews feel
that this small country is not sufficient for them, for one and a half million
people. This makes the Arabs’ fear not unjustifiable that Israel would prove a
great danger, if not now, at least 10 years hence or 20 years hence or 30 years
hence. That is the Arab point of view which might be given due consideration.
The Israelites point of view is that they have no such intention.
I had the
pleasure, at the United Nations, of having a long talk with Mrs. Golda Meir, a
very charming and able lady. She was then
Foreign Secretary of Israel. I told her, this is the position. But she said,
” Oh, no. We can get on very peacefully if we are allowed to do so. We
have no such intentions “, and so on and so forth. Obviously, that is what
the Jews say when they get their head into the tent till the rest of the body
in due course follows into the tent, if I may quote an Arab saying.
We have the
highest regard for the Jews. They are very able, and all honor to them. But
this is the newly planted State of Israel. Of course, they were there over
2,000 years ago, it is true, but they have not been there for the last 1,800
years at least. If we look at it in that
way, I dread to think what would be the position of many countries in the world,
concluded Bandaranaike.
1956 was an
eventual year for the UN. There was the
Suez Crisis, the invasion of Egypt by Israel, the invasion of Hungary by
Russia, United States troops in Lebanon and British troops in Jordan. Sri
Lanka, under Bandaranaike, responded to each of these issues.
SUEZ CRISIS
In July 1956,
Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. UK and France invaded Egypt to take the
Canal back. And Israel used the opportunity to invade Egypt and expand its
territory by annexing the Sinai. Sri Lanka played an active role in Suez
crisis.
News of
President Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal Company on July 26 1956
reached S. W. R. D. immediately and he quickly saw the dangers of this act.
First he discussed the matter with Nehru and suggested having a meeting of the
Colombo Powers.
In August
1956, UK called a conference of 24 countries to discuss the Suez issue in
London. Sri Lanka was also invited. UK wanted
to see international control of the Canal. India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and USSR
opposed this.
Bandaranaike said
that Sri Lanka supported the right of Egypt to nationalize the canal and opposed the invasion by Britain and France.
Bandaranaike told British Prime Minister Anthony Eden that there should be an unconditional
withdrawal from Egyptian territory of British, French and Israeli forces before
any other question could have been taken up, even the question of the clearing
of the Suez Canal, and that it was Sri Lanka‘s firm belief that delays in such
withdrawal would only result in the danger of widespread hostility.
” Our
attitude at the London Conference was to recognize the legality of the
nationalization and its corollary, the right to control the Suez Canal, and to
suggest, as there were international interests also, that some convention
should be again signed on the lines of the Convention of Constantinople of 1888
preserving those international rights and appointing some consultative
committee which would consult the Egyptian Government in the operation of the
canal and, if any dispute arose, that that matter be referred to an impartial
body of arbitration, perhaps under the auspices of the United Nations.
President Nasser is not opposed to that.
Bandaranaike
also obtained an assurance from Britain that the bases in Trincomalee and Colombo
would not be used in the Suez crisis.
Sri Lanka‘s
statement came to the attention of Egypt’s Prime Minister Nasser. Nasser sent a
cable to Bandaranaike in September 1956. It said:” Your Excellency, having
gone through the records of the London Conference on the Suez Canal. I wish to
express to Your Excellency the Egyptian peoples and my own appreciation of the
wise and fair attitude of your delegation and its support of the right of Egypt
to nationalize the Suez Canal Company and to safeguard its own independence and
dignity. I avail myself of this opportunity to express to Your Excellency my
highest consideration. Gamal Abdel Nasser. Later Nasser invited Bandaranaike to
visit Egypt.
On my way to New
York for the UN sessions I spent one day in London where I had the opportunity
of meeting the British Prime Minister, and certain other Ministers. I am much
obliged particularly to Sir Anthony Eden for having given me an opportunity of
explaining to him our views. Not only ours but of the Asian Powers as well,
reported Bandaranaike to Parliament.
UN had an emergency special session of the United Nations General
Assembly to discuss the Suez issue. On November 1st, 1956 Suez issue
came to the General Assembly for the first time. Sri Lanka got a chance to
voice her views on the subject.
Bandaranaike
instructed Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative at the UN, R. S. S. Gunawardena
to up hold Egypt’s rights to nationalize the Suez Canal Company and to say that Ceylon
disapproved of the military invasion of UK, France and also the invasion of
Israel. Bandaranaike opposed Britain’s
policy of phased withdrawals from Suez. SWRD
had instead suggested a conference of the users of Suez Canal. There were 11
resolutions on Suez and Sri Lanka voted for all of them. Sri Lanka was the cosponsor of one resolution, the Asian powers resolution on the Suez issue.
Bandaranaike
spoke with Egyptian Foreign Minister Fawzi. ‘Dr. Fawzi made me understand that
Egypt is always ready to discuss the matter.’ Bandaranaike
had conferred with Eisenhower earlier and agreed with US policy on the matter. Sri Lanka supported the US position of
demanding a ceasefire and creation of a UN emergency force in Suez to keep the
belligerent apart. Sri Lanka stated
that it was prepared to send in a contingent of infantry for this.
On his way
back from New York, Bandaranaike against stopped over in UK. I saw Mr. Selwyn
Lloyd and had an opportunity of explaining to the Ministers again, as a result
of my conversations in America and Canada, that I was confirmed in my view that
they should unconditionally withdraw their forces from Egypt. I impressed upon British Ministers that they
must announce this.
Selwyn Lloyd,
got at me the night before I left, I was at a
dinner given by the High Commissioner. He wanted to see me, he was preparing
his speech for the following day in the House of Commons,-to find out what I really
thought of their announcement. I said, ” Well, better late than never. You
have done right. Please withdraw your forces. Personally I think that is the
only thing to be done. “
Back
in Sri Lanka, SWRD spoke of the matter in Parliament. I think we
can take it that the danger, or any close danger of widespread war breaking
out, has now receded into the distance. That does not mean that all the
problems are solved. There is the clearing of the Suez Canal which must be
taken up quickly in the interests of all of us, Egypt included.
The United
Nations has emerged with its prestige increased-there is no question about
it-over this incident. Even the American President, Eisenhower himself, is
satisfied that they must work through the United Nations in the future to
secure the peace of the world. I hope the other great powers will also come to
that conclusion, and the United Nations will now come into its own, said
Bandaranaike in Parliament.
Bandaranaike’s
efforts to resolve the Suez Crisis, pleased the Arab countries. UNGA appointed
an advisory committee to guide the United Nations Emergency Force for
Suez.(UNEF) Sri Lanka was nominated to this body by Iran and was unanimously
approved. This was an indication of the
appreciation of Sri Lanka’s foreign
policy by other countries, said Nissanka. The other countries were Brazil,
Canada, Colombia, India, Norway, and
Pakistan, with the Secretary-General as chairman.
HUNGARY
There was a
revolt in Hungary in 1956, and Russian troops entered in October 1956. Russia prevented
the matter from coming up in Security Council by using her veto. However, US brought the matter before the General
Assembly. Sri Lanka did not have diplomatic relations with Hungary or Russia at
the time.
Sri Lanka
spoke against the invasion at UN General Assembly. Sri Lanka said whether it is
Russian dictatorship in Hungary or Anglo French dictatorship in Suez, it is
undesirable. Sri Lanka asked that Russian
forces be withdrawn from Hungary and Hungary left free to work out her own destiny.
United
Nations General Assembly appointed a fact finding special committee on Hungary.
Sri Lanka was appointed to this committee, with Australia, Denmark, Tunisia and
Uruguay. Sri Lankan Representative R.
S. S. Gunawardena was appointed a Secretary of this committee. The committee was not allowed to visit
Hungary.
In this case,
Nissanka observed, Sri Lanka was reluctant to anger Russia. The Report of the
committee on Hungary was very critical of Russia. Sri Lanka abstained from
voting, though it was member of the committee. Bandaranaike was slow to condemn
the execution of Imre Nagy, former Hungarian Prime Minister by Russia.
LEBANON and
JORDAN
In August
1958 US and UK invaded Lebanon and Jordan respectively. UN met to discuss the
matter. Sri Lanka condemned the invasion and wanted the forces
withdrawn. SL
supported a resolution moved by the USSR for the withdrawal of these troops .This paved the way for the subsequent
adoption by the UN of a similar
resolution, said VLB Mendis.
I have in my
hands a resolution that has been tabled by the Soviet Union, by Mr. Andrei
Gromyko. This is the resolution they have tabled, I presume today, in the United
Nations Assembly, said Bandaranaike to Parliament.
“The General Assembly, recognizing the
necessity of adopting urgent measures to ease tension in the Near and Middle
East area in the interests of preserving universal peace, recommends to the
Governments of the United States and Great Britain to withdraw their troops
from the territory of Lebanon and Jordan without delay, instructs the United
Nations Secretary-General to reinforce the United Nations Observer Group in
Lebanon in accordance with the plan presented by the United Nations Observer
Group in Lebanon in its Second Report, and to send a group of observers to
Jordan with a view to supervise the withdrawal of American and British troops
from Lebanon and Jordan and the situation along the frontier of these
countries. ”
These views, I am happy to say, correspond
entirely with my own, and those are the very instructions that, two days ago
over the telephone, I conveyed to Sir Claude Corea [our UN representative] in
New York. That is a sensible way of securing this withdrawal and, I am glad to
say, a proposal of that sort coming from the Soviet Union itself is likely to
be acceptable to the majority of the countries in the United Nations now said
Bandaranaike in Parliament. (concluded)
