EGYPTIAN TREATY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17237, 17 April 1930, Page 7

EGYPTIAN TREATY

BRITAIN STANDS FIRM FAR-REACHING DEMANDS LONDON, April 10. The Daily Telegraph's diplomatic correspondent .says: "The Wafdist leaders claim an equal share or parity with Great Britain in the future control of the Sudan. The British Govemnient refuses to consider the withdrawal of the British garrison on the eastern hunk of the canal. Cabinet remains firm on the essential issues." EFFECTIVE PLAIN SPEAKING LONG SITTING YESTERDAY (Received April 17, 10 a.m.). LONDON, April 16. From the fact that the AngloEgyptian Conference resumed at 10.30 p.m., and was still sitting at 1.30 a.m., it may be inferred that the plain speakhad an effect on the Egyptians, who face Cabinet's firm decisions of yesterday. They seemingly are not prepared to allow the. conference to break down. CONTROL OF SUEZ CANAL BRITAIN'S LAST OLIVE BRANCH LONDON, April 1. lhe Anglo-Egyptian conference aims at, devising a treaty which will meet the demands of Egypt for independence. The tour main questions which are being discussed are as follows: (1) Security of British and Imperial communications; (2) the defence of Egypt against foreign aggression or interierence: (3) protection of foreign residents in Egypt; (4) the future control of the Sudan. Certain political circles are surprised at the British Government's decision to negotiate with the Egyptian delegation. and it is likely that they will challenge the Government's action in the House of Commons Meanwhile, Australians can rest assured that the Government is fully seized with the Commonwealth's altitude towards the negotiations, especially the <|iiosl ion of the future guarding of the Suez Canal. The prestllt conference is the fourth tunc since February, 1y22, when Egypt was declared independent, that negotiations have been conducted for a settlement, The questions were then "reserved to the discretion of the British Government, until such time as it is possible, by free discussions and friendly accommodation on both sides, to conclude agreements with regard thereto between the two Governments." The questions thus reserved were those detailed above. Tb. 9 first three attempts to arrive at ii settlement wei'e made, as follows : 1924, when Zaghloul Pasha met Mr. MacDonald, who was forced to break off negotiations because of Zaghloul's attitude concerning the maintenance of troops guarding the canal ;\ in 1927, Sarwnt Pasha and Sir Austen Chamberlain reached an agreement on till points except the Sudan, but Sarwat was unable to secure Egyptian support for his attitude towards the question of British troops. He was forced to resign in 1929, when Mahmoud Pasha, then dictator, negotiated a draft treaty with Mr. Henderson. This differed from the Cham-berlain-Sarwat agreement in several important respects, including the temporary settlement of the Sudan question.

LOUD BRENTFORD'S WARNING Mr. Henderson's modifications marked a long step towards the Egyptian position at the present conference. Therelore, it is held that Die time is now rivore propitious than at previous meetings. Ihe Egyptian leader. Nahas Pasha, is hacked almost unanimously by Parliament. Mr. Henderson's proposals were favorably received by the Egyptian populace. The defence of the canal remains the chief bone of contention, but there seems to be a good prospect of making the Egyptians realise that it is in their interests to have the canal properly guarded, and to give Britain the right to guard it.

On the British side there is every indication of a conciliatory spirit, though the Government' has already declared that if has gone as far as it can. Laborites and Liberals strongly support Mr. Henderson. Their opinion is that success now would make his Foreign Secretaryship memorable. An influential body of Conservatives also support the 1929 draft treaty, but look on it M absolutely Britain's last olive branch. They are prepared to hotly contest a single further concession.

Another section of Conservatives, fewer in number, but equally important, strongly 'believe that .Mr. Henderson has gone too far. These include Lord Brentford, who returned last week from an Egyptian visit, in which he thoroughly investigated the political situation, lie is issuing in a few days what he terms a grave warning to the Empire concerning the danger of Hie present conference.

The tmrnort of bis warning is that Malms Pasha's poliev is to turn out Britain, "bag and baggage," from EgvPt, Lord •Brentford alleges I bat the issues are so vital that the conference represents a threat to the Empire's security and future. The ex-Hicrh Commissioner. Lord Llovd, who resigned as a direct result of the Henderson-Mahmoud negotiations. is expected to be pioininertlv associated with the ncritation to prevent what has i>ren termed the British surrender to Iv/vnl.

Tb.> opposition, however, is unlike-lv to siT-cecd. There is a lavsro and definite hodv <>f onininn in Britain which nre Fers a friendly Fv.rvpl In a hostile one. even if (be'allainment of frieiv'shio means enling Britain's retention of tin* countrv.