تقارير وأوراق للجنة الإدارة المصرية [و‎‎٨] (١٠٨/١٥)

5
[968—2] C
Lord E. Cecil's present proposals involve the entire elimination of the Foreign
Office from administration of Egypt, which is to be undertaken by a separate
Department only nominally attached to this Office, and under an independent chief
having direct access to the Secretary of State. They represent the feeling of
personal dissatisfaction with the Foreign Office which has always animated and has
been freely expressed by Lord E. Cecil, and which was, to a certain extent, shared
by the late High Commissioner. They do not represent the feeling of the native
elements who cherish the connection with the Foreign Office, nor of the present High
Commissioner, nor of the other branches of the Egyptian Government, which
appreciate and are perfectly satisfied with the Foreign Office administration. Sir
M. MacDonald, Mr. Dunlop, and the late Judicial Adviser (who are now in London)
would bear me out in this.
While agreeing with Lord E. Cecil that a new Department should be formed
in the Foreign Office to control Egypt at the end of the war, I disagree altogether
with his recommendation that this Department should be only nominally attached
to the Foreign Office, and that its chief should be independent of the Permanent
Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Lord E. Cecil presupposes that at the end of the war international problems
in regard to Egypt will cease, and that it will be possible for the new special
department to settle down to the purely internal administration of the counry. I do
not believe that this forecast is in accordance with the true facts of the case.
Egypt always has been, and will remain a cosmopolitan country, in which questions
of foreign subjects and interests will be constantly to the fore. Great stress was
laid on this feature by Lord Cromer in his book and in his annual reports, and it
accounts for his and Sir W. Brunyate’s idea that the legislative body in Egypt
should be internationalised. It will be remembered that the High Commissioner is
also Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will he, in this capacity, be under the Foreign
Office, or the head of the new separate department, or is it proposed that he should
be under the former for Foreign Affairs, and the latter for Administration? The
frontiers of Egypt with Tripoli and Abyssinia, and the control from Cairo of the
Hedjaz and the Arabian coasts will give rise to constant questions of foreign
relations. The abolition of the capitulations, and of the Caisse de la Dette, and
the acceptance by the Powers of the new Judicature Law, &c., will have to be
negotiated by the Foreign Office, and will engage diplomacy for years to come. The
treatment of French commercial interests in Egypt should depend on the treatment
of British commercial interests in Morocco, and this entails supervision by the
Commercial Department of the Foreign Office. Last but not least, what will be
Turkey’s relations with Egypt in the future? Instead of the old Turkish High
Commissioner, there will presumably be a Consul-General in Cairo.i And the full
support of the Foreign Office will be required to prevent his Consulate from becom
ing a centre of nationalist and Pan-Islamic agitation. In former days the German
Agency was also a centre of anti-British propaganda and intrigue. Will not this
continue with a German Consulate? Certainly for many years to come Egypt with
its mixed population and interests, and its political importance, must remain a field
for diplomatic struggles and problems.
To sum up. I submit that if Mesopotamia falls to our administration, there will
be full scope for the establishment of a Near Eastern Department for Mesopotamia,
Egypt and Aden* under a Head of Department, or even under an I nder-Secretary.
This department should be recruited, partly from the Foreign Office and partlv from
the Egyptian and Mesopotamian or other administrative services. If Mesopo
tamia remains in Turkish hands and we are solely concerned with the government
of Egypt and Aden, a considerably smaller department will be required, but it
should be recruited in the same manner. In either case the department should foimi
part of the Foreign Office and its Under-Seretary, or Head of Department, should
be under the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If and
when it becomes evident that we must administer Mesopotamia, the department
should be constituted at one. If Egypt alone is concerned, preparations should be
made for constituting a department at the end of the war, but its actual establish
ment might well wait until then, the control remaining as at present. There is
* alreadv an official in the War Department who deals with Egypt, but it would be
advisable to entrust this duty to a more senior man. From enquiries I have made,
there does not appear to be anyone on the Foreign Office staff, at present, who would