Coll 15/1 'Egypt Affairs: General Situation 1931; Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, 1936' [‎19v] (39/493)

18
matter with the Foreign Offiqe. It was
evident from Amr Pasha’s remarks that
we were confronted with a major com
plication, and in a telegram to the Secre
tary of State in New York the Foreign
Office uttered the warning that “if we
insist on the exchange of letters ....
including the secession point .... we
shall risk losing the treaty altogether.”
Meanwhile, in Cairo, the newspapers had
published textually that part of Sidky’s
note to the delegation (see above) which
dealt with the Sudan protocol, and the
whole text of the note appeared in the press
on 24th November. On 16th November, in
defiance of the understanding between
Sidlky and the Foreign Secretary, the
Bevin-Sidky drafts were published in
Cairo in extenso. The protests of His
Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires were met with
regrets and excuses to the effect that an
antidote had to be found to the ‘ ‘ continu
ous and poisonous misrepresentation of the
Opposition.” On the same date the
Egyptian Treaty Delegation met to discuss
the treaty documents and adjourned after
three and a half hours discussion in the
course of which, it was reported, strong-
opposition to the proposals had developed.
On 23rd November His Majesty’s Charge
d’ Affaires reported that Sidky had con
tinued to register interpretations of the
Sudan protocol contrary to those of His
Majesty’s Government, and that when
taxed he had insisted that he was “ trying
to calm public excitement.”
52. On 23rd November Sir O. Sargent
informed the Egyptian Ambassador that
it would be necessary to have the oral
understandings reached in London on the
interpretation of certain aspects of the
draft treaty and protocols embodied in an
exchange of letters to be signed at the time
of signature of the treaty and attached
thereto. The ambassador was given a list
of the points which were as follows :—
(i) That the protocol did not change
the status of the Sudan.
(ii) That the Sudanese, when ripe for
self-government, should have a com
pletely free choice of status, includ
ing independence.
(iii) That the United Kingdom could
secure the defence of the Sudan with
whatever troops and facilities they
required.
(iv) That His Majesty’s Forces would
retain their present rights of tran
sit and flight over Egypt during the
period of evacuation, and that the
question would then be discussed
between the two Governments with
a view to arriving at a mutu^
agreement for the future.
(v) That the abrogation of the 1936
Treaty did not affect the position of
either party as regards financial
rights and obligations accrued
under the 1936 Treaty.
The Ambassador expressed the liv^est
concern and said that insistence on Sidky s
committing these interpretations to papei
would wreck the chances of a treaty.
53. A further obstacle to an exchange of
letters was revealed when it was learned
that the texts of the treaty and protocols
had been communicated to the Egyptian
Chamber of Deputies for discussion at a
secret session on 26th November which, it
was intended, would authorise signature
and the over-riding of the Treaty Delega
tion. This secret debate, however, would
not of itself constitute ratification, and a
further debate would be necessary for that
purpose. At the secret session Sidky
would have to say that there were no treaty
documents other than those communicated
to the Chamber. Consequently, it would
be difficult for the Government to admit,
in the subsequent ratification debate, that
a further document had later been signed.
In these circumstances the Foreign Office
suggested that His Majesty’s Government
should perhaps content themselves with
agreed statements to be made during the
respective ratification debates by the
spokesmen of both sides.
54. On 26th November seven members of
the Egyptian Treaty Delegation published,
in the Egyptian press, a statement over
their signatures announcing, with reasons,
their rejection of the Bevin-Sidky pro
posals. By so doing they gave the signal
for their dismissal, and on the same day
they were formally dissolved by Royal
Decree on the ground that their existence
no longer had any object.
55. At the secret session of the Chamber
of Deputies on 26th November the Govern
ment were duly given a vote of confidence.
No interpretations of the treaty docu
ments were volunteered by Sidky Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. :
he did, however, state that there were no
documents other than the three texts under
discussion.
56. On 1st December the Egyptian
Ambassador delivered an official note
stating that on his return to Cairo, Sidky
had secured his Cabinet’s approval of the
draft treaty and of the Sudan and evacua
tion protocols; that by a decree dated 26th
November the decree constituting the
official Egyption delegation had been abro
gated; that the Egyptian Chamber of