Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1930. BRITAIN AND EGYPT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 145, 1 April 1930, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1930. BRITAIN AND EGYPT.

The negotiations opened in London yesterday in regard to the relationship between ('Britain and Etfypt follow lon o' consideration, separately and jointly,- of a matter that is of vital interest to both countries. Britain’s chief concern in the destiny of Egypt arises, of course, from its close connection with the Suez Canal, on the control of which depends one of the most important links in the long- chain of Empire communications. The attitude of the Egyptians on the general question was voiced by Nalias Pasha, when the previous draft treaty, presented by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Austen Chamberlin), was rejected. Nahas Pasha objected to any declaration of independence, which, lie contended, Egypt already enjoyed. The country never was part of the British Empire and never wished to he. The statement is partly true, and in part a grotesque inversion of the facts. Egypt enjoys a large measure of independence now, purely because of an act of grace by Britain. Otherwise Egypt has not been! independent since the days of the Pharaohs. It is true the country never was part of the British Empire; it is partly correct to sav it never wished to he, but it is equally certain it could have been annexed in 1914 with .little overt protest. When Turkey efitered the war, Britain declared a , protectorate over Egypt. This was merely a substitute for the Turkish suzerainty, which was then in nominal existence. . It was no inroad on the independence of the native Egyptian, for that condition simply did not exist. Straightout annexation would not have been any more a violation, of independent status. Those who know the country best believe that, had annexation taken place, accompanied by a promise of eventual autonomy under the British Flag, the Egyptians would have settled down placidly, and would have shown far more goodwill than has been displayed under the system adopted, that of making successive concessions fo the Nationalists in circumstances such that they seemed to have been wrested from Britain bv threat. Several times in comparatively recent history there .have been departures from this policy of yielding in face of agitation. The most notable are the stern action that followed the mijrder of Sir Lee Stack and, the latest, the ultimatum over the Assemblies Bill. As regards the military aspect, Sir Austen Chamberlain’s draft treaty oi 1927 stipulated that troops were to be kept in Egypt for the protection of the Suez Canal, but they were in no sense of the word to be regarded as being’ in occupation of the country. They were to remain in the capital for fen years, and at the end of that time it was contemplated that they might be removed—at any late, that was to be a question open to discussion. The present Government lias agreed to remove them when the cantonments ire ready for them to go into, which is estimated to take about five years. As Viscount Grey of Falloden stated at the annual meeting of the Liberal Council recently, there is not a great deal of difference between the two proposals. But in the interests of the whole Empire it is essenthat whatever may be the decisions regarding the other matters at. issue, no weakness ■should be displayed in Connection with the security of the Canal.