Coll 15/1 'Egypt Affairs: General Situation 1931; Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, 1936' [‎13v] (27/493)

6
five years as the time required to liquidate
the immense war organisation set up on
Egyptian territory. Sidky Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. accepted
the offer of withdrawal with, in the delega
tion's words, “ restrained gratification,”
but expressed concern over the five-year
period, which he professed to regard as
altogether excessive.
13. On 7th May, as a result of further
exchanges of views between the Secretary
of State and the delegation, Lord Stansgate
issued the following statement in Cairo :—
“It is the considered policy of His
Majesty’s Government in the United
Kingdom to consolidate their alliance
with Egypt as one between two equal
nations having interests in common. In
pursuance of this policy negotiations
have begun in an atmosphere of cordi
ality and goodwill. The Government of
the United Kingdom have proposed the
withdrawal of all British naval, military
and air forces from Egyptian territory,
and to settle in negotiation the stages
and date of completion of this with
drawal, and the arrangements to be made
by the Egyptian Government to make
possible mutual assistance in time of war
or imminent threat of war in accordance
with the alliance.”
14. The first formal meeting of the
British and Egyptian delegations took
place on 9th May, when the atmosphere
was £ ‘ cordial but reserved. ’ ’ It was agreed
that the next meeting should take place
when the Egyptian delegation had studied
the documents communicated to them. It
was also agreed that British and Egyptian
experts should carry out an inspection of
British service installations in Egypt.
15. On 19th May the first exchange of
treaty texts took place between Sidky
Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. and the legal adviser of the
Foreign Office, who had been sent to Cairo
to reinforce the British delegation. The
Egyptian text was described by Lord
Stansgate as “ a childish effort so limited
in scope as to be quite hopeless from our
point of view ’ ’ and as an effort to decide
the whole question of the Sudan in favour
of Egypt in advance. Neither this draft
nor the first British draft which, Sidky
Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. prophesied, would 1 ( make a bad
impression on the Egyptian Delegation
need be reproduced here, except to mention
that the British draft laid down in detail,
as the 1936 treaty had done, the facilities
to be provided by Egypt to render fully
effective the mutual assistance to be
afforded by the parties in war, menace of
war or apprehended international emer
gency. It was also reinforced by a draft
military convention communicated a
days later. From a preliminary study of
the two drafts, however, Sidky Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders.
evolved a personal document which may
be taken as a point of departure and was
described by him as an “ avant-projet
conjoint ad referendum des deux cotes.
This document is reproduced in translid^tm
as Annex 3. It will be noticed that it
alters the title of the instrument under
negotiation from treaty of alliance to
“ treaty of mutual assistance.”
16. The British draft and accompanying
military convention were rejected by the
Egyptian Delegation, who “ were not
willing to include either in a treaty or in
a military convention any provisions
corresponding to article 7 of the 1936
treaty (even in the revised, more palatable
and reciprocal form in which we had
dressed them up when presenting our draft
of the military convention) nor any
provision about our maintenance of
installations and stores of equipment of
the kind which we had prepared
They offered no hope of anything extensive
beyond the avant-projet ” (see preceding
paragraph). Lord Stansgate accordingly
announced that, as it was quite outside any
of his instructions to sign a treaty without
a provision of this kind, the only thing he
could do was to send a report on the
position to His Majesty’s Government. In
the event Lord Stansgate was recalled for
consultation and arrived in England on
3rd June.
17. It was recorded in paragraph 11
above that the Cabinet had expressed the
hope that it might be possible to secure
arrangements for the establishment of an
Anglo-Egyptian Defence Board to work
out arrangements for giving effect to the
treaty. This suggestion had at first been
rejected by the Egyptian negotiators owing
to a complete misunderstanding on their
part of the intended nature and functions
of the board, but the idea appealed to King
Farouk, who mentioned it spontaneously to
Lord Stansgate and Sir R. Campbell as
providing a possible way out of the
existing deadlock, quoting the United
States-Canadian Joint Defence Board
established during the war as an analogy
which would repay examination. A care
ful study of the composition and functions
of this board was accordingly initiated.
18. Article 16 of the treaty of 1936
provided that “ any revision of this treaty
will provide for the continuation of the
alliance between the high contracting
parties in accordance with the principles
contained in articles 4, 5, 6 wnd 7.”
Having regard to the refusal of the