CWW2.10.2 Soviet Union Position Paper Primary Source Soviet Foreign Minister Dmitri Shepilov, “Statement at 22-Power London Conference, Aug. 17, 1956.” True to its policy of peace, the Soviet Union is a consistent exponent of having all disputes settled by peaceful negotiation. The Soviet Union is convinced that it is possible to settle also the Suez problem by respecting the sovereign rights of nations, and by developing international co-operation on a basis of equality and non-interference in internal affairs, in keeping with the spirit of the times. . . . There are two aspects of the Suez Canal problem; that of the nationalization of the company and that of free navigation through the canal. The first aspect falls exclusively within the internal competence of the sovereign Egyptian state…. I would like to point out that position of some governments on the Suez Canal is intrinsically contradictory. On the one hand they recognize the sovereign rights of Egypt; on the other hand they contest the possibility of Egypt exercising these rights, and thus they are trying to justify interference in the internal affairs of the country. . . . What is the meaning of this reservation to the effect that international interest allegedly limits the right to nationalization? It can mean only one thing; the desire to preserve an inferior status for Egypt by artificially combining the question of the nationalization of a private company with the question of navigation through the Canal. It should be pointed out that the Suez Canal Co., founded on the basis of a one hundred year old concession, has a very pronounced colonial character. . . . The whole of Asia, the whole Near and Middle East are in the midst of a great patriotic upheaval of nations which are now at present members of the United Nations . . . . If we are all to accept the high principles of the United Nations, and if we speak about welcoming the changes which have taken place in relation to countries which had once been in a state of colonial dependence, then we cannot, and should not, hinder the exercising by these countries of their sovereign rights. Egypt, like many other countries who have recently attained their independence, is naturally still desiring to overcome the grave consequences of her colonial status. The nationalization of the Suez Canal Co. is in itself a legitimate step on the way to freeing Egypt from the survivals of the past and a help in the upsurge [improvement] of her national economy which is lagging behind
CWW2.10.2 Soviet Union Position Paper Primary Source Soviet Foreign Minister Dmitri Shepilov, “Statement at 22-Power London Conference, Aug. 17, 1956.” True to its policy of peace, the Soviet Union is a consistent exponent of having all disputes settled by peaceful negotiation. The Soviet Union is convinced that it is possible to settle also the Suez problem by respecting the sovereign rights of nations, and by developing international co-operation on a basis of equality and non-interference in internal affairs, in keeping with the spirit of the times. . . . There are two aspects of the Suez Canal problem; that of the nationalization of the company and that of free navigation through the canal. The first aspect falls exclusively within the internal competence of the sovereign Egyptian state…. I would like to point out that position of some governments on the Suez Canal is intrinsically contradictory. On the one hand they recognize the sovereign rights of Egypt; on the other hand they contest the possibility of Egypt exercising these rights, and thus they are trying to justify interference in the internal affairs of the country. . . . What is the meaning of this reservation to the effect that international interest allegedly limits the right to nationalization? It can mean only one thing; the desire to preserve an inferior status for Egypt by artificially combining the question of the nationalization of a private company with the question of navigation through the Canal. It should be pointed out that the Suez Canal Co., founded on the basis of a one hundred year old concession, has a very pronounced colonial character. . . . The whole of Asia, the whole Near and Middle East are in the midst of a great patriotic upheaval of nations which are now at present members of the United Nations . . . . If we are all to accept the high principles of the United Nations, and if we speak about welcoming the changes which have taken place in relation to countries which had once been in a state of colonial dependence, then we cannot, and should not, hinder the exercising by these countries of their sovereign rights. Egypt, like many other countries who have recently attained their independence, is naturally still desiring to overcome the grave consequences of her colonial status. The nationalization of the Suez Canal Co. is in itself a legitimate step on the way to freeing Egypt from the survivals of the past and a help in the upsurge [improvement] of her national economy which is lagging behind
cww2-10-2-soviet-position-paper-for-blog.docx