BRITAIN AND EGYPT

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26517, 4 September 1951, Page 7

BRITAIN AND EGYPT

U.S. Interest In Dispute (Special Correspondent N.Z.F.A.) (Rec. 8 p.m.) LONDON, September 1 Emphasising that agreement between Britain and America is the key to the situation in Egypt, as it is in Persia, the weekly journal, the “Economist,' says that a successful precedent was set by “the team of Mr Stokes and Mr Harriman” in developments in Persia, and urges Britain and America to extend such co-operation to cover the whole of the Middle East. When the Persian affair was in extremis—but not before—a sufficient degree of co-operation at a high enough level was secured. “Washington discovered that it was not, after all, disinterested and could not afford to be neutral. Will the • same discovery in other Middle Eastern disputes have to wait until they, too, have gone too far? "British and American agreement does not mean simple American backing for British politics any more than it means automatic British acceptance of any American nroposal. It does not require formal alliance or creation of an -open British and American front. But it dpes require mutual understanding and mutual trust. “If the British must convince the Americans that they will not stir up unnecessary trouble in the Middle East simply by crusted selfishness and refusal to march with the times, the A mericans must' convince the British that they will not throw away the irreplaceable assets of the free world simply through unwillingness to stand uo to local politicians,’’ continues the “Economist.’’

. British Rights “In Egypt the British are In possession of undoubted contractual rights which the local government wishes to abrogate. The asset enjoyed by the British under their contractual rights is one of the utmost value not only to themselves but also, as it seems to them, to the whole of the Western world. “If the Suez Canal were left undefended the consequences to the West might be even more serious than the drying up of Persian oil. "Yet in Egypt, as until recently in Persia, it has been impossible to get Americans to show any sign of interest in the subject, let alone of support for the British attitude. Indeed, visiting American dignitaries In Cairo, as in Teheran, have left the Impression that they would be quite glad to see the British removed. “In Egypt, as in Persia, the politicians in office, who themselves are drawn from the rich propertied class, require the excitement of rousing a nationalist cause to distract attention from the unhappy state of the country they rule. "Egyptian politicians have been talking of denouncing the treaty of ‘ for a long time, but they have not denounced it.

“Even the categorical statement of the Foreign Minister did not settle the matter, as he might be induced to resign. “Now that the Prime Minister, Nahas Pasha, has chimed in, the intention to denounce it looks more serious. But even now it is noticeable that another of the signatories of the 1936 treaty, Hafiz Afifi Pasha, who is well known to be very close to the Palace, has made a speech defending the treaty and opposing its denunciation.

"Nothing will be certain until King Farouk returns to Cairo from his extended and expensive honeymoon—except that British and Egyptian relations, and all that hangs upon them, continue to be the sport of Egyptian politics. “Unfortunate Complication” "It may be regarded as an unfortunate complication that the leaders of the Wafd are being positively assisted to put up an effective smokescreen by the decision of the Western Powers to arraign Egypt before the Security Council. "The complaint about unwarrantable Egyptian exercise of the right to search, in the Suez Canal was originally brought by Israel. To challenge the Egyptian attitude on a matter to do with Israel is to pick a strongpoint for attack; once the existence of Israel enters the argument, all Arabs and most Moslems automatically take the anti-Israeli side. “The Wafd is accordingly scoring a political success by its ability to stand as it could on no other current issue as a champion of the Arab world and even of oppressed Asia. “Against this must be set the advantage that the United States, Britain, and France are acting together—which is a rare and valuable event in the Middle East. It is doubtful whether this unanimity could have been secured if Israel had not been Involved.”