SUFFER ATTITUDE LIKELY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 271, 28 August 1946, Page 5

SUFFER ATTITUDE LIKELY

EGYPTIAN TREATY TALKS DOMINION REPRESENTATIONS (Special from E. G. Webber, Representative of N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 11.15 a.m.) LONDON, Aug. 27. Several London newspapers today publish reports that as a result of representations from the Dominions, Britain is likely to adopt a much stiffer attitude in negotiating with Egypt for the treaty revision. New Zealand has not made representationson the matter, but both General Smuts and Dr. H. V. Evatt are reported to have urged that the full withdrawal of British troops from Egypt at the present moment would dangerously weaken Mediterranean communications at a time when it is felt that there should be no ■weakening any-, where. Technically, if the British Government decides to make no further concessions to the Egyptians, and to stand on her treaty rights, she need not withdraw troops further than the canal zone, and she could * maintain them there until 1956, when the treaty finally expires. It is doubtful, however, whether technical rights would prove sufficient, Reports from Egypt suggest that the fate of Sidky Pasha’s Coalition Govern ment hangs largely upon the success of the Egyptian proposals for treaty revision. Sidky Pasha cannot depend upon any solid body of supporters, and the Wafdists, under the leadership of Nahas Pasha, are already making strong political capital out of the break-down of the negotiations with Britain. If the negotiations make no further progress, and no way is found by Sidky Pasha of saving face, the present regime may he displaced by the Wafdist-backed administration. In view of the weill-known opposition of King Farouk to Nahas Pasha, it is unlikely that the Egyptian wartime Premier will return to office, but it is virtually certain that the Wafd, as the most influential single party in the country, would dominate the new administration. Any Government which replaces Sidky Pasha is bound to do so on the claim that it can succeed where Sidky Pasha failed, and in the present temper of Egyptian politics, this is likely to take the form of renewed anti-Brit-ish agitation. Such agitation would prove most embarrassing to Britain in tfhe present delicate state of Middle Eastern affairs. The Egyptians, of course, know this, and are likely to use it as a weapon. Whether they will knowj when to stop, however, is another

question. In spite of anti-British riots and other hostile demonstrations, British influence is still strong in Egypt, and in the light of recent experience, more responsible Egyptians and politicians are not likely to forget the necessity from British protection. Unfortunately Egyptian policy, to Britain has become the shuttlecock 'of Egyptian domestic politics, and in the rough and tumble which is certain to ensue if the present -talks break down, nationalist prejudice and ‘ the heat of domestic arguments, may upset discretion. - One argument which may dissuade Egyptian leaders from further alienating British sympathy is the growing spread of Communism ,in their" country. Recently Moslem leaders in, Egypt proclaimed. Communism contrary to the laws of Islam, and though the movement probably represents chiefly a surging up of the underprivileged classes, the big landowners and politicians who still dominate the country are likely to think carefully about precipitating any internal trouble they may not be able to control. It is perhaps significant that the Wafdists recently proclaimed a close affinity with Socialism, and oil " this score they cannot afford to be indifferent to the good will of Mr Attlee’s Government. The present suspension of the talks is due to failure to agree on three major counts. The first is the timetable for British evacuation, the second , are the • conditions under which British troops will have the right of re-entry upon Egyptian soil, and third is. the future of the Sudan. Main Stumbling Block At the moment the second. is the main stumbling block. The Egyptians claim that only war or the immediate threat of war against Egypt or her near neighbours should entitle .the British to re-enter Egypt. The British argue that as war is'made these days, this is insufficient, and that in the even of the threat of war to a larger area, the British should still be entitled to re-occupy Egypt. In view of the opinions, of some of the Dominions, [ind reported recommendations by the British Chief of Staff, Mr Bevin is unlikely to give way on this issue. Britain is also most unlikely to give way to Egyptian clamour for the Sudan. It is felt that neither Egypt’s prior record as administrator in the f Sudan nor her historical claims justify her demand to reassert sovereignty over the Sudanese. One question being asked is.whether, if Mr Bevin adopts a “tougher” line with Egypt, Britain has the troops available to maintain, order in the event of violent repercussions. Already with armies of occupation in Austria and Germany and commitments in the Far East, Palestine, Greece and Italy, the demands upon Britain’s much reduced post-war army are considerable. - "