The Waikato Times with which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1930. BRITAIN AND EGYPT.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17997, 16 April 1930, Page 4

The Waikato Times with which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1930. BRITAIN AND EGYPT.

The Home Government is faced with yet one more foreign question of real importance which follows immediately on the heels of the Naval Conference. The Egyptian representatives are in London trying to come to an arrangement on the terms which are to be observed in Britain’s evacuation of Egypt. It is a question which should have been settled when the autonomy was granted, and it could then have been done with little or no friction. Now the question has been debated and discussed in Egypt, and the people have excited each other with demands that Britain cannot grant. They have demanded that the Soudan should be restored to them and that British soldiers, which are there to guard the Canal, should be removed from the country. Neither of these conditions can be granted. So far as the claim to the Soudan is concerned, the fact is that Egypt has no claim in morality or common sense or international law. The people are not Egyptians; they threw off tho rule of the Egyptians and when those people tried to reconquer them the attempt failed. England subdued the country and has given it good government, and it is now a successful colony and lias made great advances in ine growing of cotton. If Egypt were again put in control of the country it would immediately lead to rebellion. It is not likely that the people are enthusiastic admirers of Britain, but they have respect for her, and none for the Egyptians, It is hardly likely that the claim to the Soudan will be pushed very vigorously, as the cooler heads among the Egyptians must realise that the effort to hold Lhe Soudan would unduly strain the resources of their country. The presence of troops to guard the canal zone is a different question. We have definitely recognised the independence of Egypt subject to the settlement of outstanding questions of which this is the most important. It was a foolish settlement, for undoubtedly the Egyptians have the show of right in objecting to the presence of foreign troops in thei country. On the other hand, the security of the canal is a British interest of the highest importance. If the question could be settled by reason it would be easy to prove that Egypt should hail the presence of the troops with pleasure. It ensures the safety of their country without effort or expense of their own. The soldiers would not occupy Cairo or any other city, but would he stationed in barracks at a short distance from the canal, and would take no part in any internal affairs. The Egyptians would have all the host of the bargain. We know, however, that reason will have nothing to do with the demands or with the settlement. The epidemic of nationalism which has infected so many countries has attacked Egypt vigorously, and nothing will content her but complete independence. Under some circumstances it might be well to let her alone to meet the troubles as well as to enjoy the sweets of independence, but there is always the thought of the safety of the canal to restrain the action of politicians. The canal itself requires constant attention. There is no scour, as the tide does not flow through the canal, and in consequence it silts up and .requires constant dredging. Underwriters used to insert a clause in their policies,

“Touching ground in the Suez Canal not to be deemed a strand.” It may still be inserted. The interest of the Egyptians in the canal is small, and does not extend much further than the dividends on such shares as they may still hold. Britain is differently placed. The canal is of the first importance for communications with India, and to a lesser extent with Australia and New Zealand. Its maintenance in good order is necessary, and also its protection from possible enemies. It is a difficult question, but it cannot be said that in maintaining troops near the canal wc are inflicting material injuij of any kind on Egypt. X\ c shall certainly be inflicting a sentimental injury, but when we recollect that Egypt lived under the suzerainty of Turkey during the whole of the nineteenth century we may come to the conclusion that the blow to their feelings of independence is not severe. It was not until the beginning of the Great War that Egypt became independent, and then it was by the action of England. It was found that the position of Egypt was an anomaly; it was practically independent of Turkey yet nominally owed her suzerainty. It was occupied by Britain, who took possession of it as an enemy country with the promise to the Egyptians that they should be independent at the conclusion of the war. If that independence had been accompanied by the terms that will now be insisted on there would have been no complaint. Now’ the question has become one of party and the Wafd, who insist on Britain’s quilling, have swept fhe country. Whatever line the Home Government take they will be blamed. The dealings with Egypt arc one of the themes on which American orators become eloquent, overlooking their own dealings with Nicaragua and the Panama Canal. If the Egyptians know anything of the native states of India

they might sec that it is possible to maintain independence under the wing of Britain, and that contentment and loyalty can be attained under such a system.