THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1930. AN AFTERMATH IN EGYPT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20594, 19 June 1930, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1930. AN AFTERMATH IN EGYPT.

Ik the period, a little over a month, since the treaty negotiations between Great Britain and Egypt broke down, little has been heard from Cairo, the political centre to which the unsuccessful delegation returned. Now it transpires that a conflict between the King and tho Cabinet has developed, leading to the resignation of Nahas Pasha and his associates. The details given are meagre, but it is not difficult to reconstruct what has obviously happened. It is easier, indeed, to do this than to estimate what will happen next. The present Chamber of Deputies was elected last December, and the Ministry, now resigned, was formed on January 1. The Wafdists, whom Nahas Pasha leads, hold 187 places in a chamber of 214 members. It is idle to consider any other leader as the possible head of a Cabinet formed outside the Wafdist organisation. The only prospect ahead, constitutionally, is deadlock, the only way to end this seems the exercise, by King Fuad, of his very considerable prerogatives. If he takes this course, dissolves Parliament and proposes to carry on without it, a critical time, a testing of Egyptian stability, may follow. This possibility is of moment to Britain, for, as the treaty negotiations failed, Britain still shoulders heavy responsibilities in the country, notably that of assuring the safety of the foreign population. The British Government may perhaps find itself also tested by a crisis in Egypt such as has demanded intervention several times since the war.

It is practically a year since the events were set in train which have culminated in the present Ministerial crisis. There was then no Parliament in Egypt. The last one had been dissolved almost a year before, because Wafdist recalcitrancy made its proper functioning impossible. The King and a Council of Ministers, headed by Mahmud Pasha, carried on the government of the country, efficiently and well according to impartial testimony, but without the representation of the people provided by the Constitution. A change of Government occurred in Great Britain. The Labour Party, installed in office, with Mr. Arthur Henderson as Foreign Secretary, announced that a treaty would be negotiated settling finally the reserved points which have remained in question since Egypt was granted independence in 1922, safeguarding the communications of the Empire, and establishing friendly relations between Britain and Egypt perman- ' ently. Remembering past failures this seemed an ambitious undertaking. Mahmud Pasha was summoned to London, and he and Mr. Henderson drew up a set of terms intended to be the basis of the treaty. Egypt was treated generously, too generously in the opinion of many critics/ A formal treaty could not be made nor ratified while Egypt had no Parliament. Mahmud returned home, resigned, and made way for a stop-gap Administration pending the return of a new Parlia- j ment. The elections resulted, as might have been expected, in a sweeping victory for the Wafd, 1 Zaghlul Pasha's old organisation, in which is concentrated all the ex- j tremist and anti-British sentiment in Egypt. Nahas Pasha was sent to London with a mandate to conclude a treaty, but an absolutely free hand as to terms. After protracted bargaining, tho negotiations broke down, control of the Sudan being the bone of contention. Nahas and his associates returned home with nothing to show for their London visit, but with the responsibility of carrying on the domestic administration, as Mahmud had done, rest- j ing on their shoulders.

The Cabinet has resigned because King Fuad has refused his assent to bills presented to him for signature. The measures are described as being designed to consolidate the position of tho Wafd, and arc consequently regarded as a challenge to the King's authority. It is evident Nahas Pasha and his associates have brought forward legislation, possibly in the form of constitutional amendments, to prevent the repetition of the coup which dislodged them from power two years ago. The starting point then was the dissolution of Parliament. As the Constitution lays it down that the King can dissolve the Chamber of Deputies, this is most likely the constitutional point, touching tho Royal peroga-

tive, that is in dispute. The exact rights and wrongs of tho position cannot be assessed with any accuracy at a distance. The feature that is perfectly clear is that with an inflammable and easily swayed populace, faces a crisis of government. No practical arrangement can be made for a new Government formed from the present Parliament, for tho Wafdists are too overwhelmingly in the majority. Tho King may attempt again to dispense with the Chamber of Deputies, but the Wafd, victorious in the last election, may not accept his decrees with equanimity. There lie the possibilities of trouble. If it arises Britain, still in a large measure responsible for the internal peace of the country, will certainly be called upon to act. The Labour Government may thus find itself facing a new external problem. For good or for ill it set in motion the forces that produced the present situation. It may have to handle some of the consequences. Those aro the outstanding possibilities, and that is the importance to Great Britain of the crisis which has arisen in Egypt.