EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22788, 25 January 1936, Page 12

EGYPTIAN NATIONALISM

The resignation by Nessim Pasha of the Egyptian Premiership, apart from the reasons ascribed for it, is in accordance with anticipations. In keeping with their strong effort at selfassertion the . Egyptian Nationalist leaders had decided to withdraw their support after working harmoniously with the Premier for a year. They passed a resolution declaring that the British were interfering with the rights of Egypt, and calling on the nation to refuse all co-operation with the British so long as they offended against the Constitution and independence of Egypt. They declared that it was the Cabinet's duty to resign. Nessim Pasha, who had for a year ruled without either Parliament or Constitution, refused to obey, and Nahas Pasha, leader of the Wafd, then with unfortunate results exhorted the students to reopen the national struggle for Egyptian independence. The Egyptian United Front, as it is called, is committed to restoring the Constitution of 1923, to" holding a general election, and to resuming negotiations for a final treaty with Britain. That the Wafd and 'the United Front do not see eye to eye in all matters in indicated in the cable messages. Evidently Nessim Pasha was not prepared to carry on as head of a Coalition Cabinet, and there may be little in the suggestion that his resignation was by way of protest against the British proposals in respect of military precautions. It may be recalled that in a speech at the Guildhall early in November Sir Samuel Hoare refuted allegations made in certain quarters that the British Government wished to take advantage of the international situation to advance its own at the expense of Egypt's interests. To the British Government's efforts to promote free and friendly co-opera-tion between the two countries in their mutual interest Egypt had responded, he said, in a spirit of frank collaboration which could not but assist the two Governments " when the time came for the relations of the two countries to be placed on a permanent footing satisfactory to both." Equally untrue, he said, were allegations that the British Government opposed the return in Egypt of a constitutional regime suited to her special requirements. When, however, it had been consulted it had advised against the re-enact-ment of the constitutions of 1923 and 1930, since the one Avas proved unworkable and the other universally unpopular. Subsequently in the House of Commons Sir Samuel Hoare stated that the whole position was receiving consideration with a view to finding the best means of putting AngloEgyptian relations on a satisfactory permanent footing and ensuring that the failures of the past should not be repeated. The precise terms of the reply of the present Foreign Minister to the overtures from the United Front for a treaty on the lines of the 1930 proposals, negotiated between Mr Arthur Henderson and Nahas Pasha, have not been indicated. Apparently the reply was firm in respect of insistence on the necessity for the maintenance by Great Britain of military dispositions in Egypt adequate to protective purposes. It pointed also to the non-settlement of the question of the status of the Sudan. The 1930 proposals were formulated with a view to clearing up questions left, outstanding when Great Britain declared Egypt to be independent. But it has to be recognised that conditions have changed somewhat since 1930 when nobody envisaged the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. The degree of unity reached by the quarrelling Plgyptian parties is in any case still problematical, and their grievances are in.a considerable measure of their own creation.