THE RED SEA.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 57, Issue 248, 31 July 1937, Page 10

THE RED SEA.

INTERESTS OF EMPIRE. BRITAIN’S FIRM POLICY. LONDON, July 20. “An open road through the Red Sea’’ is Britain’s latest watchword in foreign policy. One of the four points of a speech at Leamington by Mr Eden, Foreign Secretary, which was taken at the Imperial Conference as defining Britain’s commitments was that Britain would not tolerate any threat to the Suez Canal or to Egypt. Mr Eden significantly pointed out in his most recent review of international affairs that Britain was equally concerned about the Red Sea as part of the Empire’s Mediterranean artery. He definitely stated that Britain would not allow the presence of any great Power in this region. > This statement meets the position caused by the Italian conquest of Abys sinia. and the proposed creation of a new port at Assab, coupled with Italian interest in Yemen, which holds the coast opposite Assab. Undoubtedly it was evoked by Signor Mussolini’s assertion of Italy’s paramount interest in the Mediterranean route, of which the Red Sea is a continuation. There a,re two factors on the eastern side of the Red Sea —Ibn Saud, who holds the coast from Akaba to the borders of Asia, and the Imam of Yemen, controlling the south-western corner of Arabia, including the eastern side, of the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb. Britain’s relations with Ibn Saud have been uniformly, good. There have been clashes with, the Yemenites in the last few years on the borders of the Aden Protectorate, though relations at the moment are friendly. Italy has shown great interest in Yemen, which is closely connected with Abyssinia, to which many Yemenites migrate. Italy’s native troops and workers in the Abyssinian campaign included numbers of Yemenites. Though Mr Eden’s polite and general references to the Red Sea possibly might be interpreted by Italy as meaning: “Keep out! This means you!” the first reception of his speech in Rome has been very favourable. It is praised as a clear and reasonable exposition of policy, though the commentators admit that they have not yet studied text.