Page 274 - Begrave Thesis_Neat

utilising the channels of expression they had already gained. In response Qassim

had agreed with his father in questioning the Party for its refusal to take advantage

of the political gains it had made. To that Qassim added, that ‘he had been elected

by people who, in fact, were very ignorant and he could not go against their

mandate’. A Fakhroo added that Bahrainis ‘as a whole were frightened that if they

stood out against the Committee the Government would not or could not support

them’. Al-Arrayed felt that the public had grown tired of the NUC’s continuous call

for strikes and that the Party had so far ‘achieved nothing’. 796

Meanwhile Menzies, as head of the delegation meeting with Nasser,

understood that any lessening of the Egyptian leader’s stance towards the Suez

Canal Company’s nationalisation would undermine his prestige regionally.

Therefore, Menzies sumrised, Nasser had no other alternative but to carry on. The

Australian Prime Minister met with Nasser on 3 September to present him with the

conference’s proposals. 797 Menzies failed to convince Nasser to accept the

conference’s proposals and the Australian Prime Minister was sent an official reply

from Nasser confirming this. 798

Following Britain’s threat to take the issue to the UN Security Council, Dulles

proposed the formation of ‘a Canal Users’ Club’. 799 The name of the club that was

formed based on Dulles’ proposal was, in fact, the Suez Canal Users’ Association

(SCUA). 800 It was publically proposed during the Suez Canal Conference’s second

796 TNA, FO 1016/468, Minutes between Burrows, Gault, Fakhroo and Al-Arrayed, 29 August 1956.
797 R.G. Menzies, Afternoon Light: Some Memories of Men and Events (London: 1967), 155 and 162.
798 ‘Reply by President Nasser to Mr. Mezies on 9 September 1956’, in Documents on International
Affairs 1956, ed. N. Frankland, (London: 1959), 194-99.
799 Clark, From Three Worlds, 184.
800 Eveland, Ropes of Sand, 208.

© Hamad E. Abdulla 253