مجموعة ١/١٥ "شؤون مصر: الوضع العام ١٩٣١؛ المعاهدة البريطانية المصرية، ١٩٣٦" [ظ‎‎٢‎٠] (٤٩٣/٤١)

20
59. On 6th December Sir O. Sargent, on
instructions from the Secretary of State,
handed an aide-memoire to the Egyptian
Ambassador in the following terms :—
“ His Majesty’s Government would
like Sidky Pasha to be reminded of the
understandings reached in London. His
Majesty’s Government are now in an
extremely awkward position as a result
of the leakages and Sidky Pasha’s one
sided interpretation. They have a House
of Commons and public opinion which
could not agree that the Sudanese, far
from being placed on the road to self-
government, should be set one stage back
and made subject, so far as their liberty
of choice is concerned, to the Egyptian
Government. His Majesty’s Govern
ment therefore wish for letters of inter
pretation which in no way prejudice the
Egyptian position, in no way go beyond
what Sidky Pasha agreed in London,
but which set out in more detail the
purpose of the Sudan Protocol as His
Majesty’s Government understand it.
Mr. Bevin has been trying to meet Sidky
Pasha’s difficulty over a letter, and has
worked out a wording which will, he
thinks, prove acceptable to him. This
text is attached.
“ Mr. Bevin would like Amr Pasha to
understand, and explain to Sidky Pasha,
that if His Majesty’s Government do not
get letters of interpretation he will have
to make a full statement in the House of
Commons at the time of ratification,
referring to all that Sidky Pasha had
agreed in London and to His Majesty’s
Government’s clear-cut interpretation of
the meaning of the protocol. If Mr.
Bevin is forced to make a statement of
this kind it may prove far more difficult
for Sidky Pasha than a letter of inter
pretation on the lines of the enclosed
draft.
“ Mr. Bevin’s statement in the House
would explain what is at the back of the
Sudan Protocol, namely, the preparation
of the Sudanese for self-government, and
secondly the exercise of their right, when
ripe for self-government, to choose their
future status, which includes indepen
dence. The House would be told how the
phrase ‘ under a common crown ’ had
been inserted in the protocol. This was
a recognition of symbolic sovereignty
and was never intended as a brake on the
wheel of Sudanese progress towards
independence. His Majesty’s Govern
ment could never in this age and with the
spirit of the United Nations Charter
guiding them in their foreign policy,
accept the idea that the protocol had m
some way imposed some check upon the
Sudanese in the choice of their future
status. As regards the present position
in the Sudan, Mr. Bevin would say in
the House that the protocol involved no
change but merely amounted to an affir
mation of the existing status. Undt^phe
protocol His Majesty’s Government
w r ould continue to secure the defence of
the Sudan with all the necessary
facilities.”
The enclosure embodied the points listed
in paragraph 52 above.
60. On 7th December the Governor-
General, on his return to Khartoum, issued
a public statement, based on Mr. Attlee’s
letter to him quoted in paragraph 50,
which made it clear that he had Mr.
Attlee’s authority to give the assurances
in question to the Sudanese. This state
ment was received with considerable bitter
ness in Cairo, and on 8th December the
Egyptian Government issued a communi
que dissociating themselves from the state
ment and regretting that “ the Governor-
General of the Sudan, who represents the
British and Egyptian Governments,
allowed himself to make a declaration in
accordance with an authority from the
head of one of the Governments which the
head of the Egyptian Government did not
see and approve.”
61. On 8th December Sidky Pasha
resigned the Premiership, ostensibly on
grounds of ill-health (His Excellency had,
in fact, been undergoing drastic medical
treatment) but in reality, as His Majesty’s
Embassy were informed in confidence,
because King Farouk had come to the con
clusion that Sidky’s relations with His
Majesty’s Government had become too
strained, and that he was too much compro
mised by his various statements about the
treaty for any progress to be made. The
Governor-General’s declaration was not,
apparently, a motive for the Pasha’s
resignation. Before leaving office Sidky
had replied to His Majesty’s Government’s
aide-memoire of 6th December in a written
communication which constituted a flat
rejection of all the suggestions placed
before him. But since the document was
never alluded to again in Egypt, it is
superfluous to quote it here.
62. Nokrashi Pasha succeeded Sidky
Pasha as Prime Minister. In his reply to
the Royal Rescript of appointment, he said
that £ ‘ Egypt has undertaken to direct the
Sudan towards progress in different
domains of life with a view to attaining