ORIGIN OF THE DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8618, 9 May 1906, Page 1

ORIGIN OF THE DISPUTE.

TRESPASSING TURKS. The presence of Turkish, troops upon Egyptian territory in the Peninsula of Sinai was first discovered in February last by Rumbley Bey, an Angjo-Egyp-tian officer, as a result of which a ertrong remonstrance was addressed from Cairo to Constantinople, Which elicited the reply to the effect that " a vassal Power had no right to make euch complaints to its suzerain." The impertinence of this answer was naturally resented by Lord Cromer, who referred the matter to London. It was stated at the time that the Sultan's forces had not only been establishing forte in territory admittedly Egyptian, but had also been threatening the officers of an Egyptian gunboat lying in a bay near Kabah. All local efforts to remedy the matter proved unavailing. On further representations being made by the British Government, the Porte, it is said, formally refused to withdraw the Turkish troops from near Akabah, affirming that th© territory is Turkish, and not Egyptian. The British Government then ordered the cruiser Diana to proceed to the ■■ Gulf of Akabah, whereupon th© Sultan "chnibtd down," and consented to the despatch of a joint TurSb-Egyptian Commission to settle the question on the spot, though (ac an English exohange puts it), " there was nothing to Study." The Diana's OTders were thereupon cancelled, and two high Egyptian officers proceeded to the scene" of the dispute. It was assumed that the matter would end there, but disquieting rumours followed, and the negotiations' which have since been pending seem to have been without peaceful result. AN INTERESTING LETTER. In the course of a letter, dated February 21, Laff an's correspondent at Constantinople gay© the following interesting description of the origin of the Akabah dispute: — " In the middle of January an An-glo-Egyptian officer, Rumbley Bey. an inspector of the Turko-Egyptian frontier, was making a tour in the Sinaitic Peninsula, when he was not a little Burpriaed to find a garrison of 100 Turkish soldiers at the townlet of Tabait, «**&«>»» eoaesbj eight miles tooth-

west of the 1 Turkish port of Akabah, at the head of tshe gulf of that name. The Turks were decidedly on Egyptian soil, but they seemed to consider the AngloEgyptian inspector as the intruder, and, although the report has not been confirmed, it is alleged that they temporarily arrested him. On 'hie release, Rumbley Bey immediately communicated with his department, and it was not long before the matter reached Lord Crooner's ears, who passed it on to Downing Street. A note, strongly worded, was sent through the Khedival Government to the SuMime Porte, protesting against tide violation of Egyptian territory. "It may be mentioned /that by a Firman of the Imperial Ottoman Government, a line of demarcation was regulated between El Arieh (of Napoleonic fame) and the Turkish port of Akabah (the ancient Ezion GebaT of Solowon). According to this Firman, that part of the Sinaitic Peninsula southwest of this line should be under the ' personal administration of the Khedive.' As 6uch it has always been recognised. Th© Porte's reply to the Khedival Government, which asked why no intimation had been made to it of this strategical movement beforehand, was to the effect that such a question was beyond the power of the Egyptian Government to ask, seeing that it was no more than a vassal province of the Sublime Porte. To this the Khedival Government retorted that this theory might have been held good long ago, but, such was not the case now. The Turks, however, refused to budge, and so the matter was again referred to London, which instructed the British Embassy at Constantinople to act. Thus far no tangible result has been arrived at., and it is possible that a naval demonstration on the part of the Egyptian Government, which has several well-equipped gunboats in its service, may be appealed to as a last resort before the garrison at Tabah is shelled out of their position — a very easy manoeUr vre. The British Government could not interfere for international reasons, actively, that is; although, of course, it is Lord Cromer who is really conducting the negotiations. There is, therefore, the likelihood of a paradox taking place in the form of a rupture of relations between the two States, which are to all outward etiquette one and the same. THE TURKISH VERSION. " The theory of Turkey's African dominion has, with, the exception of the Vilayet of Tripoli, in Barbary, vanished as completely as the Isthmus of Suez. The Turkish version of the incident is that -the battalion had been ordered to Daba, a post on the Arabian shore of the Gulf of Akabah, but the captain in charge had misunderstood his instructions to reach Tabah, a very plausible excuse, which might be accepted in view of the difficulties of Turkish orthography, were it not swept away by the bare facts of the Turks persisting in their occupation. " Several theories have naturally sprung us> regarding the. purport of this frontier incident. One is, arid it is an old one, that the Turks- are wanting to get a better hold ,in the Sinaitic Peninsula, in favour of their strategic Hedjaz line, so that they may one day make a dash on Egypt, and occupy their 1-ofit province-. , In further development of this theory it is said that they once sank a Turkish steamer in the Canal in order to see whether and how it would be possible to block up the Canal and prevent a navy from interfering with tho passage of Turkish troops. " Another, that thi6 is a countermove to the opening of Port Soudan, which will tend more than ever to make the Red Sea, and, therefore, the Hedjaz, come under the Anglo-Egyptian jurisdiction and political influence, which, of course, it is the Sultan's policy and interest to oppose, as he is now doing, with the Hedjaz railway. " Thirdly, that this occupation is only a ballon d'essai to divert England's attention from Asia Minor, which has become of interest just now owing to the Mining Law Revision. "Lastly, that it is merely an intrigue similar to that practised on Persia, in .order to secure some concession or other in compensation for a withdrawal. In any case, the smallness of the number of Turkish troops shows the slight plausibility of all these versions. THE PORTE'S PROMISE. " The rumour that Anglo-Egyptian troops have occupied Akabah is untrue, as- only an insignificant frontier dispute has occurred with the Turkish troops. The incident is now in the hands of the diplomatists at Constantinople. " In regard to reports issued there alleging the occupation by the Egyptian Government of territory near Akabah, it should be mentioned that it is not a question of occupation by Egypt, but of the occupation by the Turks of a point near Tab ah, o-n the Sinai Peninsula, about eight miles west of Akabah, and unquestionably Egyptian territory. The Porte, on. being interrogated regarding tho matter, stated that it was unacquainted with tho fact, but promised to withdraw its troops. The performance of this promise is now being awaited. The Turks allege that Egypt is distributing a force of gendarmerie along the frontier. This, however, if true, does not concern Turkey, since it is a question of movements on Egyptian territory. How long previous to the Egyptian qfficer'is discovery Tabah had been occupied by the Turkish battalion is not known; in any case, the Porte had ample time to rectify a political tort which it merely ascribes to a mis-spel-ling of Turkish instructions."