THE SUEZ CANAL

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 58, Issue 4190, 29 May 1939, Page 3

THE SUEZ CANAL

ITS FUTURE CONTROL. , Inspired by claims to a place on Suez Canal Co. board voiced on behalf of Italy, this article, condensed from London “Daily Telegraph,” Is by J. B. Firth, who advances reasons for opposing that proposal and explains the future of the canal in the light of established arrangements. Territorially the canal belongs to, and when the company’s concession expires in 1968 the whole undertaking will revert to, Egypt. These facts are strictly pertinent to the Italian claim that the maritime Powers using the canal should be represented upon the company’s board of directors in proportion to their annual tonnage payment dues for transit. The figures for 1937 show that Italian tonnage passing’ through the canal wos second to the British, but the gap between them is wide: British 17,254,182, Italian 5,866,087, German 3,313,220, Dutch 2,800,144, French 1,819,783, Norwegian 1,657,437. Italy’s figures for 1938 were very much less. Of the 32 directors on the board, Fiance, which is fifth on the tonnage list, supplies 19, Great Britain 10, Egypt two (by recent concession) and Holland one. Italy seeks to strengthen her case by arguing that so important a waterway ought not to be controlled by a private company, but should be administered as a universal public utility company and directed by an international authority. This argument is good enough in principle, and long found advocates in Great Britain. Mr Gladstone and others who criticised Disraeli’s great coup in 1875 were strongly in favor of internationalisation. The same pica was urged when in 1909 the company sought an extension of its concession for 40 years. But po plans were ever produced for overcoming’ the difficulties, and no one has yet explained how any plan can be evolved without doing extreme violence to the lawfully established rights of the shareholders and of Egypt. That is (why the most strategically important waterway in the world remains the property of a private company whose first concern is to earn dividends for its shareholders. While succeeding admirably in that respect it has also fulfilled to the letter all its original obligations and those of the subsequent convention of 1880. It was not the fault of Ferdinand de Lesseps or of France that the canal was not a “universal” undertaking. All the nations were warmly invited to co-operate in its construction. The response of all but France was languid; that of Great Britain actively hostile. The weight of the British Government was thrown for political reasons against the project on the ground that it was against British interests to create a second Bosphorus, and when after the canal w"s opened the promoters -wanted more capital it was only from French investors that subscriptions were forthcoming.

Is it then, any real grievance for Italy or anyone else that, as by far the greatest share of the capital was French, control should lie in French hands’ The amount of Italian capital in the Suez Canal is negligible: even her Suez tonnage was only onethird of the British in a year when it was exceptionally heavy owing to the Abyssinian war. If any country has a legitimate grievance on the score of inadequate representation it is Great Britain. But no~ grievance is felt because no discrimination of any sort is shown, and the requirements of the convention of .1880 are fulfilled m every particular. That convention certainly says that tho board shall consist of representatives of the countries “principally interested.” This has been interpreted in practice as if it meant interested financially and not as users. That is quite in accord with the general international practice. In the other great world waterway, the Panama Canal, the United States took care that no other Power had a hand in the construction, and she secured territorial sovereignty of the canal by rather high-handed methods. What answer would Washington give to any claim to representation on the directorate of the Panama Canal from foreign users on the score of tonnage figures? It must be recollected that the company’s days are numbered. The fact that its concession expires in 1968 will become more and more the dominant factor in Egyptian politics, as that date draws nearer. .Even in 1909 when the company sought an extension to 2008 such a storm of protest arose in Egypt that the project had to be abandoned. Meanwhile the rights of the Canal Company cannot be invaded or diminished on any reasonable pretext when it has faithfully observed all its! obligations, and especially those which enjoin the canal shall be open in peace and war to the ships of all nations, so long as they pay the dues.. Italy has no shadow of grievance on that head: her transports and store shops passed without let or hindrance through the canal when sanctions were in full force against her.

She may say that .the canal, is as much the “life line” of her empire as it is that of the British Empire. That is not to be denied. It is also a French ‘•life line” and a Dutch. But there is not the slightest danger of its. being

cut through the agency of the company or-of Egypt. Everyone knows, moreover, that however wide open the gates, the safety of the passage depends on what may be encountered at the entrance and at the exit. Both of these are independent of the Canal Company and of Egypt.