ANGER SWAYS EGYPTIAN EXTREMISTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 299, 9 March 1928, Page 1

ANGER SWAYS EGYPTIAN EXTREMISTS

RIOTING IN CAIRO Thirty Students Injured POLICE STONED FROM WINDOWS THIRTY students and eight police have been injured in riots which broke out in Cairo following on the tension which resulted from the failure of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty negotiations.Prom the windows of a building in which they had taken refuge, following a battle royal in the streets, 1,500 students rained stones down on the heads of the police. By Cable. —Press Association. — Copyright.

Reed. 11.5 a.m. CAIRO, Thursday. | CERIOUS student riots have occurred. Thirty students were |

injured and also eight police, whom 1,500 striking students stoned from the Wafd party’s building in which they took refuge when the police scattered them with heavy sticks. The police wore tin helmets and carried shields. The leader of the Wafd party, Nahas Pasha, appealed to the demonstrators to return to their homes, and most of them obeyed. Students at the Sheiks’ School at Assiut attacked the American College when the latter’s students refused to strike. They smashed the gates and tore up trees. Several people were injured, including the principal, Dr. Russell. Other strikers burned three motorcars at Tantah, including that of the Egyptian Commandant, who was also severely manhandled.—A. and N.Z. BRITAIN’S INTERESTS SUEZ A VITAL LINK NEW NOTE TO EGYPT British Wireless—Press Assn.—Copyright RUGBY, Thursday.. In a despatch to Lord Lloyd, British Commissioner in Egypt, dated March 1, Sir Austen Chamberlain, Foreign Secretary, referred to a report as to his conversation with Nahas Pasha, leader of the Wafd Party. The latter had stated that he felt it would be useless to discuss what advantages the various clauses of the proposed treaty would have for Egypt, as the instrument in question failed to provide for the complete evacuation of Egypt by British troops. Sir Austen said Nahas Pasha seemed to be no more inclined to recognise the realities of the situation than did Zaghlul Pasha four years ago, when Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, then Prime Minister of Britain, made it clear tht» no British Government, in the light tl the experience of the late war, could divest itself wholly, even in favour ojr an ally, of its interest in guarding such a vital link in British communications as the Suez Canal, and that security must be a feature of any agreement. It was the recognition by Sarwat Pasha, ex-Prime Minister of Egypt, of these realities which made it possible to negotiate the draft treaty, and it was the refusal of Nahas Pasha to recognise them which would again make a settlement impossible. When the draft treaty was rejected Sir Austen authorised Lord Lloyd to send the following Note to the Egyptian Government: “The British Government has for some time past viewed with misgiving certain legislative proposals introduced in the Egyptian Parliament which, if they were to become law, would be likely seriously to weaken the hands of the administrative authorities responsible for the maintenance of order and for the protection of life and property in Egypt. So long as there was any prospect of an early conclusion of a treaty of alliance, which would define the new responsibilities and rights of the two parties, the British Government was content to refrain from all comment, in the expectation that it might rely with confidence on the Egyptian Government to pass legislation which might make it possible for the Egyptian Administration to discharge successfully its increased responsibilities. “But now that the conversations with the Egyptian Government have failed, the British Government cannot permit the transfer of any of its responsibilities under the declaration of February 28. 1922, to an agreement, whether by Egyptian legislation of the nature indicated, or by administrative action, and it reserves the right to

take such steps as in its view the situation may demand.” The White Paper concludes with the

terms of the Egyptian Government’s rejection of the draft treaty which showed that it was rejected on the plea that it would legalise the occupation of Egypt by British forces.—A. and N.Z. GOOD OFFER REJECTED WAFD HAS ONLY ITSELF TO BLAME British Wireless—Press Assn.—Copyright Reed. 11.30 a.m. LONDON, Thurs. “The Times,” in commenting on the proposed Anglo-Egyptian Treaty and the correspondence published with it, expresses the view that the extreme wing of the Wafd, or Nationalist, Party has rejected a very good offer, only through its inability to recognise the hard reality of political geography. “Acceptance of the treaty would have resulted in a new division of responsibilities. “The proposed changes in the Egyptian law affecting public assemblies, which would make it harder for the police to prevent the degeneration of public meetings into riots, were no doubt in the Foreign Secretary’s mind when he prepared the latest Note. “It should be interpreted generally as a courteous warning that the Bri-

| tish Government realises its position, I and will permit no prorogation of its j responsibility for peace and order in | Egypt. The leaders of the Wafd j Party may object to the communicaj tion, but they should remember that iit is the inevitable result of their ! action.” According to a cable message the i “Morning Post” does not regret the i rejection of the treaty. The paper | likes least the proposed intrusion of the League of Nations upon the 1 ! Egyptian scene. “Our Foreign Secretary,” it says, “in his infatuation for Geneva, was willing to lay the vital communications of the British Empire at the hazard of reference to the League. Fortunately Sarwat Pasha’s friends did not share this enthusiasm. “If the Wafd Party possessed more guile it would have accepted the treaty and its conditions, in the confident hope that some future Council of the League of Nations might make trouble for the Empire in Egypt.” : The “Daily Telegraph” describes

the failure as a “political, tragedy” and the intervention of blind, destructive forces to wreck the work of good and honourable intention.—A. and N.Z.