CONTROL OF THE SUEZ CANAL

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 4676, 1 February 1945, Page 3

CONTROL OF THE SUEZ CANAL

H’c report from New York just published concerning the future headquarters oi tiie .Suez Canal Company being transferred back "to Paris from London and the rumours that thousands ol shares in the concern have recently changed hands makes interesting reading, says tiro “Southland News.’’ Both Germany and Russia are believed to have purchased large numbers of those shares from i: reach holders and non-French owners, but whether there is any justification for tiie inference that a change in policy is foreshadowed cannot at this stage be verified. The vital importance of the Canal to Britain for her link with India and the Far East, as well as Australia and New Zealand, is well known and it is hardly conceivable that any organised attempt to gain control of tiie Canal by other Interested nations would be unknown to British interests. Italy in pre-war days, when her conquest of Ethiopia was in full blast made strenuous efforts to gain a larger voice iu the management of the Canal, but this would be cajicelled out by the defeat inflicted on her armies in the African campaign and by subsequent events iu Italy itself. Control of the Canal is exercised by a private concern registered under French law, and while outside • the competence of the Governments of the countries concerned, is nevertheless amenable to the international will. The three countries most concerned tiuaucially iu the Canal are Britain, France anti Egypt, and the last-named also holds reversionary rights on account of the fact of being the sovereign power iu the territories traversed by the Canal. In 193(5 by a treaty with Egypt Britain was authorised t'o keep adequate forces iu the zone for the defence of the waterway until such time as both couutrles agreed that tiie Egyptian army itself was capable of performing this task efficioutiy. Whether any great change lias been effected in the control methods as a result of the hostilities in Egypt, and the Far East, has not boon disclosed, but tiie latest report from au American source would seem to indicate that by negotiation and manipulation some portion of the share holdings has changed hands. Doubtless it will be found ultimately that British interests have been safeguarded and that tiie use of the Suez Canal will long be enjoyed by the ships of every nation and that no discrimination will bo attempted to further complicate the real point a: issue. Tiie purpose of the Convention signed in 1888 at Constantinople by Britain, Germany, Austria, Spam, Franco, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia and Turkey, was to ensure that the Canal should “always bo free and open in time of war as in time of peace to every vessel of commerce ei of war without distinction of flag.” That state of affairs is likely to continue dlapito what may be thought by subversive elements in certain quarters with the result that Britain’s vital trade artery with the Far East will remain inviolate.