NO ONE WILLING TO BE EGYPT’S PREMIER

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6551, 7 March 1928, Page 8

NO ONE WILLING TO BE EGYPT’S PREMIER

Sarwat Pasha Declines To ReconsiSer Decision WAPD LEADER REFUSES TO ACCEPT [By Electric Cable-Copyright.] (Aust and N.Z. Cable Association.] CAIRO, March 5. Sarwat Pasha has declined the King’s request to reconsider his resignation Ho states that ho only retained the Premiership in the hope of achieving an agreement.. He must now obey his doctor’s order and take a prolonged rest. Nahas, the leader of the Wafd Party, is reported to have told friends that he will not accept the Premier, ship under the present circumstances.

EGYPT BIGGER SUFFERER BY REFUSAL TO ACCEPT TREATY. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, March 5. Commenting on the Anglo-Egyptian situation “The Times” says: f, ln view of their failure, which may be only temporary, the negotiations mark a very important advance in AngloEgyptian relations. The British Gvernment has shown what it is prepared to concede, what interests it regards as vital, and on what conditions it is prepared to co-operate with the Kingdom of Egypt. “On the other side, Sarwat Pasha, after having had tife courage to initiate negotiations, has shown that a patriotic Egyptian statesman can arrive at an agreement with the British Government by which the independence of his country is as fully re. cognised as are the most vital interests of the British Empire.” “The Times” mentions that there is good reason to believe that the late Zaghlul Pasha, Egyptian Nationalist loader ,was fully acquainted with and approved of the preliminary conversations between Sarwat Pasha and Sir Austen Chamberlain during King Fuad’s visit to this country, and that, whatever were his diplomatic mistakes in 1924, he was no opponent of the alliance which was the subject of the recent negotiations. Vital to Empire. In further comment on the Egyptian Cabinet’s decision to reject the draft Anglo-Egyptian treaty negotiated by Harwat Pasha and Sir Austen Chamberlain, the “Daily Chronicle” agrees ■with- the latter that this is a misfortune for Egypt rather than for Great Britain, but adds: “A sound treaty, if frankly accept cd, would be much to the interest of both parties/ Subject to certain points Great Britain has no motive for limiting Egypt’s independence but these point's are vital to our Empires security.' By meeting us on them and accepting British friendship in the spirit in which it is offered, Egyptian Nationalists could ensure for their country a most favourable future.” Anti-Treaty View. The “Morning Post” takes the view that the terms offered to Egypt were so far-reaching that it would have been- a misfortune for the British Empire had they been accepted, and continues: “They surrender certain principles which seem to us vital to British security, British subjects, and British interests. They modify the capitulations, they confer taxation rights over foreign nationals, they abolish certain safeguards of justice to foreigners and modify others. They further limit the functions of both financial and judicial advisers, and they abolish the British Sirdar. ” The “Morning Post” also complains that the draft treaty would have committed the vital interests of the Empire to the League of Nations in ten years’ time. The “Daily News” regrets the failure of the Treaty and urges the largo number of sensible Egyptian Nationalists who deplore the course of events to take more active steps to resist tho extremists. The journal adds; “If the wilder spirits use the occasion to provoke a recurrence of violent agitation in the cause of Egyptian independence, they will be betrayed not by the British but by tho unintelligent obstinacy if a handful of Egyptian fanatics.” The Foreign Office will publish to-morrow the full correspondence on the Anglo-Egyptian discussions. It is understood that the correspondence will reveal that the chief bone of contention Is Britain’s Insistence to keep troops if. Egypt.