BRITAIN AND EGYPT

Otago Witness, Issue 3861, 13 March 1928, Page 28

BRITAIN AND EGYPT

REJECTION OF DRAFT TREATY COMMENT BY BRITISH PRESS. RUGBY, March 5. In further comment on the Egyptian Cabinet’s decision to reject the draft Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, negotiatiated by Sarwat 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 accepted, 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 points are vital to our Empire’s security. By meeting us on them and accepting British friendship in the spirit in which it is offered, Egyp tian Nationalists could ensure for their country a most favourable future.” SARWAT PASHA’S DECISION. CAIRO, Marcli 5. Sarwat Pasha has declined the King’s request to reconsider his resignation. He .says that he only retained the Premier ship in the hope of achieving an agreement. He must now obey the doctor’s orders for a prolonged rest Nahas Pasha is reported to have told friends that he will not accept the Premiership under present circumstances. BRITAIN’S NOTE PUBLISHED. WILL DEFEND HER INTERESTS. CAIRO, March 7 The newspapers publish th e British Note to Egypt, which says that Britain will not tolerate the introduction of laws hamper ing the administration of Egypt and hindering Britain defending her interests and the security of foreigners. It cites m this connection the abrogation of the law dealing with public assemblies, which the Egyptian Government repealed, and insists on the maintenance of the control of the Egyptian army as well as the position of rßitish officers therein. TEXT OF PROPOSED TREATY. RUGBY, March 7 The text of the proposed Anglo-Egyp-tian Treaty, which was rejected by the Egyptian Cabinet and the papers relating to its negotiation by Sarwat Pasha and Sir Austen Chamberlain, will be issued for publication on Thursday morning The document begins with a memorandum by Sir Austen Chamberlain. After his first conversation with Sarwat in Lon-' don last July during which Anglo-Egyp-tian relations were reviewed and mutual desires expressed to prepare the way for co-operation, Sarwat contributed the draft of a treaty to which a counter-draft, approved by the British Government, was returned When Sarwat left London in November his discussions with Sir Austen Chamberlain were practically completed, but the final approval of the British Government was required for the third draft, on which the two statesmen had agreed When this had been given. Sir Austen Chamberlain sent th e text to Lord Lloyd (British High Commissioner in Egypt) with a covering despatch, which pointed out that the final draft differed importantly from that originally offered to Sarwat, and embodied large concessions to the latter’s own views and to Egyptian sentiment. The following is a summary of the agreed draft: Article 1 formally records that an alii ance is to be established. Article 2: Egypt not to adopt an attitude incompatible with an alliance or liable to create difficulties for Britain. Article 3: If by act of aggression Egypt is involved in war. Britain will, subject to th e provisions of the League Covenant, come to her aid as a belligerent. Article 4: Egypt to consult Britain if circumstances arise likely to imperil Egypt’s good relations with a foreign Power.

Article 5: In view of the co-operation between the two armies as contemplated in Article 3, the instruction and training °f Egyptians to be in accordance with British methods, any foreign officers or instructors, necessary being selected from among British subjects. Article 6:lf Britain be menaced with or engaged in war, Egypt undertakes to furnish , al] facilities and assistance in its power in Egyptian territory. Article 7: Britain to maintain upon Egyptian territory such armed forces as are considered necessary for the defence of Imperial communications, the presence of these forces not to constitute in any manner an occupation, and not to prejudice the foreign rights of Egvpt. After 10 years the parties to reconsider the question of the localities in which the said forces are to be stationed. Should no agreement be reached the question may be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations, should the’ decision of th e League be adverse to the claims of the Egyptian Government.. the question can, at its request, be reviewed at intervals of five years from Tne date of the League’s decision. Article 8: The Egyptian Government, when engaging the services of foreign officials, to give preference to British * subjects. Article 9: Britain to support Egypt in obtaining the consent of the Powers to a modification of the capitulations to meet present, conditions Article 10: Britain to s'tnport Egypt’s request for admission to' the League of Nations. . Article 11: The British representative to Egypt to be an ambassador with precedence over al] other foreign representatives.’

Article 12: The rights and obligations developing upon either party under the

Covenant of the League riot to be prejudiced by the treaty. Article 13 refers to annexes, in wliich arrangements for carrying out the treaty are set out. Article 14: The parties agree that any disagreement on application or interpretation of the treaty not settled by direct negotiations be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the League Covenant. Annex one elaborates the procedure pro posed for carrying out Article 7. Annex two states that Egypt is to appoint, in. agreement with the British Government, financial and judicial advisers, and the number, status, and function of British officials now engaged in public security and police services are to remain unchanged, pending modification of the Capitulatory system. FAILURE OF NEGOTIATIONS. LONDON, March 8. The Morning Post does not regret the rejection of the treaty, and says it likes least to propose intrusion of the League upon the Egyptian seen®, adding: “ Our Foreign Secretary in his infatuation for Geneva was willing to lay vital com munications of the British Empire at the hazard of reference to the League. For tunately Sarwat and his friends did not share that enthusiasm. If the Wafd had possessed more guile it would have accepted the treaty and the conditions in the confident hope that some future council of the League might make trouble for the Empire in Egypt.” The Daily Telegraph describes the failure as a political tragedy and regrets the intervention of blind, destructive forces to wreck the “work of good, honourable intention. LEADER OF THE WAFD. CAIRO, March 8. King Fuad summoned Ns has Pasha to the palace. The Wafd no longer desires Naha® to take the reins. It is believed that the only solution is dissolution. SERIOUS RIOTS BY STUDENTS. CAIRO, .March 3. Serious student riots have occurred. Thirty students were injured, also eight of the' police, whom 1500 striking students stoned from a Wafd building in which they took refuge when th© police scattered them with heavy sticks. The police wore tin helmets and shields. Nahas Pasha appealed to the demonstrators to return to their homes, and most of them obeyed. The students at the Sheiks’ School at Assiut attacked the American college vteii the latter’s students refused to strike, and smashed the gates and tore up trees. Seva ral were injured, including the principal (Dr Russell). Other strikers burned three motor cars at Tantah, including that of the Egyptian commandant, who wag also severely manhandled. REJECTION OF THE TREATY RUGBY, March 9 The Home Secretary (Sir William Joyn-son-Hicks), in a speech last night, said that tbe Egyptian Government in rejectirig the treaty had displayed Imnst incredible folly and total inability to appreciate realities. Britain had gone to the utmost limits in negotiating with them, for no British Government voul-l be prepared to jeopardise British inteiert" by acceding to the demands for further concessions. With regard to the in. mediate future Egypt and Great Britain would automatically revert to tbe posi lion created by the declaration of the 1922 treaty, which was at an end. The Note that Lord Lloyd delivered on behalf of the British Government, which was entirely responsible for its terras, said that in a matter of this kind there were no party questions whatever. The late Labour Government under Mr Ramsav MacDonald had been hist as firm as the Government of to-dav.