ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY

Hokitika Guardian, 10 March 1928, Page 3

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY

THE TEXT PUBLISHED. DR\ET WHICH WAS R E.l E.CTET) BY EGYPT. (Uv Telegraph—-Per Press Association.! RUGBY, Ala rel) 7. The text of the proposed AngloEgypfiun Treaty, rejected by the Egyptian Cabinet, and a. statement rclutino* to its negotiation by Sarwat Pasha and Sir Anson Chamberlain, have been issued for publication on Thursday mroning. The document begins with a. memorandum by Sir Austen Chamberlain alter the first conversation with Sarwat Pasha, in London last July, during which Anglo-Egyptinn relations were reviewed and a mutual desire expressed to prepare the way for close co-operation. After this Sarwat Pasha contributed the draft of a treaty to which a counter draft, approved by the British Government, was returned. When Sarwat Pasha left London in November, his discussions with Sir Austen Chamberlain were practically completed, but the final approval a the British Government was required for the third draft, on which the two statesmen had agreed. 1 When tliis had been given, Sir Austen Chamlierlain sent the text to Lord Lloyd, British High Commissioner m Egypt, with covering despatch which pointed out that the final draff differed importantly from that originally offered to Sarwat Pasha, and embodied large concessions to the letter’s own views, and to Egyptian sentiment. Following is a summary of the agreed draft:-—■ Article I formally records that an alliance shall he established. Article 2—Egypt is not to adopt an altitude incompatible with the alliance or liable to create difficulties for Britain. * Article 3—lf by an act of aggression Egypt is involved in a wan. Britain will, subject to the provisions of the League Covenant, come to her aid as a belligerent. Article 4 -Egypt is to consult Britain if circumstances arise likely to imperil Egypt’s good relations with a foreign Power. Article s—ln view of the co-opcra-ton between the two armies, as contemplated in Article 3. the instruction and training of the Egyptians is to be in arrordauto wim British methods, any foreign officers or instructors lieccss'ary being selected front among British subjects. Article fi If Britain ho menaced with, or engaged in war, Egypt undertakes to furnish till facilities and assistance in its power in Egyptian territory. Article 7—Britain is to maintain upon Egyptian territory such sinned forces as are considered necessary for the defence of Imperial communications, the presence of these forces not to constitute in any manner an occupation, and not to prejudice the foreign rights of Egypt. After ten years the parties are to reconsider the question of the localities in which the said forces are to he stationed. Should no agreement he reached, the question may he submitted to file Council of the League of Nations. Should the decision of the League he averse to the claims ol the Egyptian Government the question can. at their request he re-opened at intervals of five years front the date of the League’s decision. Article B—The Egyptian Government, when engaging the services of foreign officials is to give preference to British subjects. Article 9 - Britain is to support Egypt in obtaining the consent, of the Bowers to a medilication of the capitulations to meet present conditions. Article .I.o—Britain is to support Egypt's request, for admission to the League of Nations. Article 11—The British representative in Egypt is to he an Ambassador with precedence over all other toroign representatives. Article 12—The rights and obligations devolving upon either party under the covenant of the League are not to be prejudiced by the ’Treaty. Article 13 refers to the annexes in which arrangements for carrying out the Treaty are set out. Article 14—The parlies agree that any disagreement on the application or interpretation of the Treaty, not settled by direct negotiations, shall he dealt with in accordance with the provisions ol the League covenant. Annex 1 elaborates the procedure proposed for carrying out Article 7.

Annex 2—Egypt is to appoint, in agreement ivitli tin- Britsh Govcrn1110nt financial mill juilioinl advisors. The number, status, and function of the British officials now engaged in public security and .police services are to remain unchanged, pending the modification of the capitulatory system.— British Official Wireless. DESPATCH TO LOBI) LLOYD. KuiPTfAX OB.IECTIOX TO BRITISH Til OOPS. BOOBY. March 7. In a despatch to Lord Lloyd, dated March Ist. Sir Austen Chamberlain refers to former telegraphed report on n conversation with Xalms Pasha, leader of the Wal'd, who had stated that he felt it useless to discuss what advantages the various clauses of the treaty would have for Egypt, since j the instrument failed to provide lor complete evacuation by British troops. Sir Austen says that Nalias seemed no more inclined to recognise the realities of the situation than did ZaghIn! Pa.slia lour years ago when Mi Ramsay MacDonald made it clear that ‘‘no British Government, in the ligld of the experience of the late war, cm divest itself wholly, oven in favour o an ally, of its interest in guardim such a vital link in British enmmuni cations at tile Suez Canal. Such sc curity must he a feature of any agree- i ment.” Sr Austen adds that it was Sarwat’s recognition of these realities which | mad:* it possible t > negotiate the | treaty, and it is Xalias’s refusal to recognise them which will again make a settlement impossible. Sir Austen authorised Lord Lloyd when the treaty was rejected to send the following Note to the Egyptian ■ Government:-— ‘-The British Government has for, some time past viewed with misgiving certain legislative proposals introduced in the Egyptian Parliament. which if they were to become law, would be likely seriously to weak- > on the hands of the administrative - authorities of order and for the pro- > tection of life and property in Egypt. t So lon«- as there was any prospect ot 1 ;1 an early conclusion of the treaty of '1 alliance, which would define new roll sponsibilities and rights of the two t parties, the British Government was it content to refrain from all comment, 0 in expectation tlint it might rely with O confidence on tlio Egyptian GovornII ment to appoint legislation which might make it- impossible for the Egyptian Administration to discharge successfully its increased responsibiliw tfes. but, now that conversations with p pi, P Egyptian Government have failed, t, the British Government cannot permit a- discharge of any of its responsibilities under the deration of February 28th

1922, whether by Egyptian legislation of the nature indicated or by administrative action, and it reserves the right to take such steps as in its view the situation may demand.” The White Paper concludes with the terms of the treaty on the plea that it legalises the occupation of the country by British forces.—British Official Wireless.