THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, MAY 26th, 1921. THE EGYPTIAN CRISIS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XI, Issue 131, 26 May 1921, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, MAY 26th, 1921. THE EGYPTIAN CRISIS.

One of the outstanding instances of the evil that has been wrought by exPresident Wilson’s unguarded and unqualified enunciation of the principle which he burdened with the cumbersome and inexplicit title of “self-determination” is to be foun 1 in the condition of Egypt at the present moment. It is over forty years ago since Britain first became involved in the direction of Egyptian affairs. By 1879 the then Khedive, Ismail, an extravagant spendthrift, who had borrowed what were then considered enormous sums in Europe, had got the finance of the country into such a hopeless condition that Britain and France, in the interest of bondholders, were forced to intervene and appoint joint comptrollers of the Treasury, Ismail being called upon to abdicate and being succeeded by his son Tewfik. This joint control ended in 1883, when Fiance, finding that, what with revolts and famines and other troubles, she was losing more than she seemed to be gaiing by intervention, withdrew and left the field to Britain to make the best she could of what looked like a very onerous and unprofitable job. It was only in the face of strong opposition at home that the British Government of the day reluctantly resolved to persevere alone in the ungrateful task that they had undertaken along with the French, who, while ready to do nothing themselves, yet regarded tho continuance of British supervision with great jealousy— a jealousy which not very many years later brought the two nations very near to armed conflict. The tension thus created had in the end good effect, and as the result of (•aimer discussion France accorded full recognition to Britain’s status in Egypt, and from then on British influence has been predominant. Left with a free hand, Britain set to work to develop the resources of the country and to reform its method of government. Ail who know anything of the history of the country during the last forty years will have some remembrance of the vast amount of money which Britain risked, under the direction of some of her very best brains—statesmen, soldiers, and engineers—in bringing Egypt out of a position of apparently irretrievable bankruptcy into one of thriving prosperity, while at the same time relieving the people of a paralysing system of governmental plundering miscalled taxation and liberating the peasantry from what was virtual servitude. When the war broke out in 1914 Egypt was a semi-independent State, but still a tributary of the Ottoman Empire, and was in occupation by British troops. When Turkey, not many weeks after the war opened, allowed herself to be dragged into the conflict on the side of Germany, the Egyptian Khedive, Abbas 11., then on an opportune visit to Constantinople, declared himself as falling in with the Sultan’s example. This led to his formal deposition, the appointment ol a new Khedive, Hussein Kamel, and the declaration of independence of Turkey and of a British Protectorate. In Egypt, as elsewhere, the war created many new points of friction and aroused many new aspirations and ambitions, and among the rest a section of the Egyptian people found themselves listening eagerly to the preaching, from the text provided by Mr. Wilson, of the doctrine of self-determination, which in this case meant the “determining” or ending of British influence in the ruling of the country and the setting up of an entirely independent Government. The British administration in Egypt had, however, anticipated this and had set about the reconstruction of tho system of government on a footing which, while instituting something of a democratic franchise, also placed in the hands of the elective Government much wider powers than it had hitherto exercised.

Pursuant to a prosecution of this policy Lord Milner headed a Commission that went to Egypt towards the end of 1919 to investigate matters, and made recommendations for conferring still more liberal authorities upon the Egyptian Government. ft was hoped that these proposals would satisfy all parties, but, as so often happens, the relaxation of the firm hand led only to renewed agitation for complete self-control. The leader of the section that has adopted this attitude ii. Zaghlul Pasha, who, not originally an absolute extremist, probably finds himself less really leading a revolt than carried along on the front of an unexpected flood which his too facile tongue had let loose, and which he finds himself powerless to check, even if he would. Full of the customary vanity of the Demagogue, he cannot find it in him to forgo the alluring incense of hero-worship that is being wafted to his nostrils by the riotous and revolutionary mob. Still, none kows better than he that the Egyptian people are far from being ready either for the self-government towards which Britain was gradually educating them, or for the self-defence necessary to preserve them from subjugation to a rule much less tolerable than the easy supervision which Britain seeks to maintain. English newspaper files received by yesterday’s mail contain descriptions of the outburst ot popular Rejoicings greeted him on bis return from a visit to Paris and London, and foretell a recurrence ere very long of the exhibitions of violence of which we heard a few months back, a prediction which our cables of the last day or two show to Have been fulfilled. It was, however, believed that Zaghlul had nothing like a Majority of the people behind him, and that the Government under Adly Ytghen Pasha that had then been in existence only some two or three weeks would be able to maintain itself and ultimately secure control. At the same time, it was fully recognised fT)at the situation would prove highly critical, so that there must still continue to he some measure of anxiety as to the eventual outcome.