"THE GREATER PURPOSES"
In speeches from the White House and Philadelphia's Convention Hall, President Eisenhower in the week of crisis set down this philosophy of U.S. foreign policy:
THAT ancient crossroads of the world [the Middle East] was, as we all know, an area long subject to colonial rule. This rule ended after World War II, when all countries there won full independence. Out of the Palestinian mandated territory was born the new state of Israel. These historic changes could not, however, instantly banish animosities born of the ages. Israel and her Arab neighbors soon found themselves at war with one another. And the Arab nations showed continuing anger toward their former colonial rulers, notably Great Britain and France.
The U.S., since the close of World War II, has labored tirelessly to bring peace and stability to this area. But unfortunately passion in the area threatened to prevail over peaceful purpose. The direct relations of Egypt with both Israel and France kept worsening to a point at which first Israel, then France, and Great Britain also, determined that in their judgment there could be no protection of their vital interests without resort to force. The U.S. was not consulted in any way. Nor were we informed in advance.
As it is the manifest right of any of these nations to take such decisions and actions, it is likewise our right, if our judgment so dictates, to dissent. We believe these actions to have been taken in error. For we do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the settlement of international disputes.
We are fully aware of the grave anxieties of Israel, of Britain and of France. We know that they have been subjected to grave and repeated provocations. The present fact nonetheless seems clear: the actions taken can scarcely be reconciled with the principles and purposes of the United Nations. And beyond this, we are forced to doubt even if resort to war will for long serve the permanent interests of the attacking nations.
I am ever more deeply convinced that the U.N. is the soundest hope for peace in the world, and for this very reason I believe its processes need to be strengthened. I speak particularly of increasing its ability to secure justice under international law. In all the recent troubles in the Middle East there have indeed been injustices suffered by all involved. But I do not believe that another instrument of injustice—war—is the remedy for these wrongs.
There can be no peace without law. And there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends. The society of nations has been slow in developing means to apply this truth. But the passionate longing for peace on the part of all peoples of the earth compels us to speed our search for new and more effective instruments of justice. The peace we seek and need means much more than mere absence of war. It means the acceptance of law and the fostering of justice in all the world.
Always tne Frontier