THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, MAY 12, 1930. THE EGYPTIAN BREAKDOWN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20561, 12 May 1930, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, MAY 12, 1930. THE EGYPTIAN BREAKDOWN.

The long-drawn negotiations for a final settlement between Great Britain and Egypt have broken down; the position remains as it has been ever since 1922, except that possibly British prestige stands lower than it did. That point remains to be decided. The delegates are reported as having parted in a friendly way, agreeing that the door remained open for further negotiation when the atmosphere was more favourable. The door has been open ever since the declaration of 1922, which proclaimed to the world that Egypt was an independent sovereign State. Egypt has always jibbed at the portal, and those who have been responsible for the continued intransigeance, whether in office or out, are those who spent weeks bargaining with the Eorcign Office to no purpose. As to the atmosphere being more favourable at some future time, when this conference just ended was opened on March 31 there were protestations from both sides implying that the atmosphero had never been more favourable, and never could be. The blunt fact is that the British Government, with Mr. Arthur Henderson at the Foreign Office, has failed as the Labour Government of 1924 failed when Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald himself was chief negotiator, as Conservative Governments have failed several times since 1922. Mr. Henderson is not to be blamed actually for failing, so much as for having announced prematurely, as he did some time before last August* that success was practically in his grasp. He drafted terms originally with Mahmud Pasha, a Prime Minister without a Parliament. He knew then that a treaty could not be formally signed or ratified under such an authority. He laid all his cards on the table. Consequently when he began to negotiate anew with Nahas Pasha he had nothing to offer. It was amateur diplomacy, whjch succeeded as well as it deserved.

Though British-Egyptian relations remain exactly as they were before the fruitless conference opened, the domestic situation of Egypt has been changed drastically by the treaty-making process. "When Malimud Pasha went to London last year, he had been, for almost exactly twelve months, the head of a non-representative Government. Parliament had been dissolved a year before by King Fuad, who, with an Executive Council—actually the Cabinet of the Government under Parliament—had proceeded to administer the affairs of the country. At the time of this happening, the then British Government was asked what its attitude would be toward the development. Sir Austen Chamberlain replied that there would be no intervention in what was purely a domestic happening. Mahmud and Mr. Henderson drafted terms without great difficulty, but no treaty could be concluded with the informal Government then in power. Mahmud therefore resigned, Adly Pasha formed an interim Government, and a general election was .held at the end of last year. The result, as anyone might have foreseen, was an overwhelming Wafdist victory that returned Nahas Pasha to the office of Prime Minister. The proposed treaty, incidentally, was not an issue at the election. The only result of the whole transaction is that Egypt has had a change of Government, largely at the instance of the British Foreign Office. The clock cannot be put back. Nahas Pasha and his associates will certainly not vacate office voluntarily. It follows, therefore, that the regime in Egypt has been changed, and nothing of the purpose for which it was supposed to happen has been fulfilled. In effect, if not by actual intention, a Labour Government in. Great Britain has intervened in the domestic politics of Egypt after its Conservative predecessor had refused definitely to do so. It is a 1 curious serinel to the treaty negotia-' tions. Whether Egypt will have any reason to thank the British Government for changing the face of public life is a question to heanswered later. i The conference which failed was wrecked because the parties could not agree about the future control of the Sudan. It might seem cynical, but it is not straining the facts, to suggest that if that question had not appeared to cause a rupture, some other would have been found. The Wafd has so long appealed to the masses as their champion against British oppression, has so little else on which to appeal, that it is not the best of treaty-makers, j There was no other poinfc so con- j venient as the basis of a rupture, J however. Almost everything rise j but complete control of the Sudani had already been conceded. If, I therefore, Mr. Henderson did not! succeed in concluding a treaty, Ik; did leave the position very difficult for any successor in his role. lie offered to withdraw the British garrison practically to the banks of the Suez Canal. The only thing more that could be conceded would lie complete evacuation of Egyptian soil, and no treaty-maker on Egypt's behalf is likely to consider less than Mr. Henderson was prepared to concede Mahmud and Nahas. The same

can be said about the other reserved points. Since Britain was read} to hand the duty of protecting foreign communities and minorities over to Egypt, there will be little use offering terms less sweeping in character concerning these issues. Not only did Mr. Henderson leave himself no room to manoeuvre with the draft treaty he drew up last year, he has very largely cut the ground from under the feet of future negotiators. He set out to make a treaty that would secure the communications of the Empire and lay the foundations of a lasting friendship between Great Britain and Egypt. He failed. All that remains in another attempt is to offer more even than he was prepared to do, or coerce Egypt into r-ccepting his terms —or less. He conducted the affair as if he were certain of succeeding. Had he done so ho would have been amply vindicated. Having failed, he cannot escape responsibility if relations between the two countries drift into a less satisfactory state than they were before he tried his hand at treaty-making.