The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1930. THE OUTLOOK IN EGYPT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18620, 16 July 1930, Page 8

The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1930. THE OUTLOOK IN EGYPT.

It is generally recognised that the generous treatment of natives is invariably regarded as a sign of weakness, but it was anticipated that Britain's wonderfully generous policy in Egypt might have made a more effective appeal to all classes in that troubled country. It will therefore come as a surprise to official circles in the Homeland to learn from the diplomatic correspondent of The Daily Mail that Egypt is on the verge of a revolution, since the Wafd is determined to win supreme power by w’ itever means. It is pointed out by supporters of British policy in Egypt that the Homeland has suffered a distinct loss of prestige because of her misinterpreted generosity. But the majority of Egyptians do not desire the withdrawal of British protection because they do not trust one another. The British Union in Egypt which has addressed a letter to the Trime Minister of Great Britain, suggests the appointment of a local advisory council to assist the High Commissioner. It is worthy of note, however, that leading Egyptian Ministers at present in London deny the report that the Wafd Party or Kashas Pasha's party meditates a revolution and the establishment of a republic or a regency. Many months ago, however, concern was expressed by the Anglo-Egyptian Committee at the negotiations between the British Foreign Minister and the Egyptian emissaries concerning the new Anglo-Egyptian treaty before the breakdown. “Those who are conversant with the many difficult and vital aspects of the Egyptian problem feel,” says the statement issued by the committee, of which Mr WardlawMilne, Conservative M.P. for Kidderminster, is chairman, “that there are a number of disquieting features about the present negotiations between Mr Henderson and Nalias Pasha. Mahmoud Pasha has been succeeded, after an election where 90 per cent, of the voters were illiterates, by a Government of the Wafd, whose consistently anti-Brit ’ :h record through years of agitation contains nothing to inspire confidence and much to inspire doubts and fears. Nalias Paslia and his colleagues in the delegation attempted to conclude a friendly treaty with Great Britain, but it would be a dangerous affectation in considering the possible course of the negotiations to ignore the anti-British attitude they maintained consistently prior to their return to power. The same anti-British influence is likely to make itself felt in the actual administration of any treaty that may be brought into operation.” That is precisely what is happening. Hence the warning issued by the diplomatic correspondent of the great London newspaper. It is pointed out that though the AngloEgyptian Conference in London broke down, the Wafdist delegates attained their real objective by stretching Mr Henderson’s extreme limit of concessions. They then returned home to proclaim that they had upheld Egypt’s rights and gained new advantages as a starting point for other negotiations. The illiterate masses believed the story with the result that the Wafd leaders hold their supporters in the hollow of their hands, to move them to undertake the most desperate measures if necessary. Some indication of how the antiBritish influence of the Wafd is •likely to affect the administration of Egyptian affairs, is revealed in the fact that since Nalias Pasha assumed office in Egypt in December last no fewer than twenty-nine British officials have received notice terminating their appointments, while fourteen are stated to have retired voluntarily. The Anglo-Egyptian Committee in London has repeatedly pointed out that another factor not to be overlooked is that though Mr Henderson has declared that the extreme limit of British concessions to Egypt was reached last August, there is no evidence that this understanding has been made a condition of the present negotiations. An added cause for anxiety is that the High Commissioner, Sir Percy Loraine, has had only a short experience of Egyptian affairs and therefore lacks, through no fault of his own, the long and intimate knowledge of tlm realities of the position which would have been invaluable in the chief adviser of the Foreign Secretary. “While there may be objections to the issue of interim announcements on the progress of the negotiations,” says the Committee, “it is felt that the public should be informed without delay whether Nahas Pasha and his colleagues are seeking concessions that go beyond those offered to his predecessor, or whether the negotiations are confined to modifications of the draft treaty within the extreme limit beyond which Mr Henderson has declared he will not go. In the absence of such an assurance the negotiations remained a cause of the gravest anxiety,” and the tragic result is seen in the confused situation in Egypt to-day.

DR. ADAMS AGAIN. Very little need he said in reply to the extraordinary outburst of Dr. Adams, save only to point out that efficient administration of Kugby football both on and off the field has been reduced to a farce, in face of the spectacle of the’ official head of the Union indulging in public condemnation of a referee who was accepted as -efficient and appointed by the controlling body over which Dr. Adams himself is supposed to preside. So much has been said by those who presumed to speak as authorities on conduct generally and the behaviour of footballers in particular, that it would be interesting to know the views of those who say that it is more sportsmanlike to suppress the truth than drag it out to the public. Not content to attack the newspapers, the officials and the players, Dr. Adams has turned his attention to the referee. We doubt, however, if New Zealand has witnessed another such sorry spectacle. As far as the local administrative bodies associated with the control of Kngby are concerned, it is well to point out that they had no say in the appointment of the referee—that is the sole prerogative of the New Zealand Rugby Union. It is interesting to note, however, in view of the conflict of opinion that has been i expressed, that Dr. Adams says the game here was “among the roughest lie had attended in his life.” Dr. Adams let himself go properly. He strongly criticised the refereeing, although that official was an appointee of the New Zealand Rugby Union; he said that the British team was amazed at the tenor of the press reports of the match, and yet Mr Baxter remained silent, although previously he had gone so far as to describe the New Zealand wing-forward as a cheat; he accused the local players of being the chief offenders, and yet the referee warned two of the visiting forwards. Dr. Adams said lie did not take up the matter in Timaru as time would not permit; and yet he remained with us for four days after the match, and found time to hurl missiles at the local press a few moments before he took his departure on the Wednesday. It is not surprising in view of the sweeping nature of the attacks launched by Dr. Adams, particularly his reference to the referee; that the Management Committee of the New Zealand Rugby Union lias decided to consider the question of instituting an inquiry, which if proceeded with will raise a fierce storm which might have been avoided if Dr. Adams had not revived the controversy by indulging in such an amazing after dinner outburst.