BRITAIN AND EGYPT.

Auckland Star, Volume 55, Issue 112, 13 May 1924, Page 5

BRITAIN AND EGYPT.

ZAGHLUL AND FREEDOM. I WIIX BRITAIN WXTHDBAWT 87 Cable.—Preia Aesoclatteii.— CopyrUnt? CAIRO, May 12. The Prime Minister of Egypt (Zaghlul 'asha), in reply to questione in Parlianent, eaid he was unable to explain rhy British troopi remained in oocupaion when Egypt had been recognisedhw in independent sovereign State. HJa Jovernment was willing to enter Into legotiatione with the British Governnent, but only if such negotiations were ree from all conditions. If he -were convinced that Britain wae iot ready to concede complete independ>nce to Egypt and the Sudan, he would neither negotiate nor remain in office. Excited scenes followed the passing of a unanimous vote of confidence in Zaghlul Pasha and his policy. "We want complete independence for Egypt and the Sudan," ehouted the Nationalists. The Prime Minister eaid, further, that he denounced and repudiated the four conditions which Britain'had added to the declaration of February 28, 1022.— {A. and N.Z. Cable.) In a recent letter from London to the "Christian Science Monitor," Mr. H. W. Massingham makes interesting reference to matters outstanding between Britain and Egypt. The fact that Mr- Massingham is an anti-Imperialist and has strong Labour sympathies gives special interest to his remarks about the Sudan. He says: "The next of the Government's many difficult foreign questions will be that of Egypt. With good will the Labour Government should be able to solve it. For the Labour party has always maintained good .relations with the Egyptian Nationalist party now in power, and did its utmost to secure the return of the banished Prime Minieter, Zaghlul Pasha. Zaghlul himself is a more moderate statesman than his speeches now and then suggest, but the difficulties between the two Governments are real. The position of the small force Britain retains in Egypt to keep open communication with India ana tue Far East is one of them. It ia poesible this force may be stationed, in the future, not on the Suez Canal, but in Palestine. The Sudan is more difficult. It is certain that its existing Government will be maintained for the simple reason, among others, that the Sudanese and Egyptians are invincibly hostile to each other, and there is no chance of Egypt ever regaining her control if our adminstration retired to-morrow. The Sudan would at once proclaim its independence and maintain it. The real trouble is the distribution of Nile water. Egyptian politics are Nile politics, and Egyptian statesmen will rightly demand the setting up of a neutral water board charged with the duty of seeing that upper Egypt, which, through the barrage system, controb the supply, does not get more than her fair share of the flood- Such an arrangement, plus a little tact, may very well make and keep a long peace between England and Egypt.'