The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1929 SAFEGUARDS IN EGYPT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 845, 13 December 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1929 SAFEGUARDS IN EGYPT

IS there serious danger for the Empire in the British Labour Government’s bold policy of giving Egypt back to the Egyptians in the political sense of national independence? The right answer to that question must be left as a matter of opinion for the present and as a test of experience in the future. Labour’s proffered treaty has been designed to last for twenty-five years, and long before the expiry of the term of experimental selfgovernment for Egypt the Die-hards and impatient patriots in both countries may or may not be able to accept the policy of the -MacDonald Government as the best solution of a difficult and protracted problem. The historic land of the Pharaohs is not only a vital point on one of the most important seaways and highways of the world, but is, as it has been for thousands of years, a tempting prey to more powerful Btates with desire to try the old practice of spoiling the Egyptians.lt has been under British occupation since 1882, and has not suffered materially from the process of developmental administration and progress. The benefits of British rule have outweighed the disadvantages beyond computation. There is no denying the fact, however, that military, as well as political occupation has become irksome to the people °f Egypt, who, like every other non-independent nation these days, want to govern their own country in their own way, even though administrative independence might prove to be the wrong kind of rule for a land that often has been unruly. Though a great volume of British opinion supports the Anglo-Egyptian settlement proposals as an essential attempt to secure harmony with honour between the two countries, there is also a strong body of opposition to the projected treaty. This opposition is not confined to Great Britain. It also exists in kgypt, but is expressed differently there because of difference in the points of view. The so-called Die-hards in the United Kingdom and, indeed, throughout the British Empire, assert without qualification that the Labour Government has gone much too far in its proposed concessions to Egypt; along the banks of the Nile and in desert places Egyptian patriots protest vehemently that Labour’s offer does not go far enough, since it still withholds complete political independence from Egypt. Conservative peers in the House of Lords have succeeded in mildly censuring the Socialist Ministry for its precipitancy of action toward Egypt and the risk its policy entailed to the security of Empire communications through the Suez Canal. If censure should take a no more hostile form of opposition than an expression of regret, the Government will not be daunted in its aim to give a generous measure of home rule to the clamorous Egyptians. Whatever else may be said about the Government’s policy, it is at least absurd for anyone to condemn the draft agreement as a complete surrender of Britain’s position in Egypt. Even Lord Lloyd, formerly High Commissioner at Cairo, lias exaggerated the situation by declaring in the House of Lords that ‘‘the Government was proposing to station British soldiers in a black desert, where it would take twenty years to render the area reasonably fit for a permanent garrison.” The Labour Ministry proposes to do nothing of the kind. One of the specific conditions in Mr. Arthur Henderson’s proposals shatters Lord Lloyd’s exaggerated protest. This condition provides for the withdrawal of British troops from Cairo and Alexandria to the Canal Zone—a strip of “black desert” which includes “the pleasant little town of Ismailia,” as well as Suez. And there is a definite provision against the possibility of the desert being less than reasonably fit for the establishment of a permanent garrison. At the expense of Egypt good accommodation for the British troops must be provided, together with “reasonable amenities in the shape of trees, gardens and an adequate fresh-water supply.” Until these agreeable conditions have been provided the British troops need not leave Cairo and Alexandria. Moreover, in the event of war or menace of war, Egypt must furnish Great Britain with all possible assistance, including the use of her ports, airdromes and means of communication. Possibly this safeguard may be modified by one or other of the pacts for world peace and other idealism, but the prospective treaty with Egypt is to contain prudent protection for British interests. It may be true that Labour lias been too magnanimous in itsEgyptian policy, but it has not surrendered everything. The Sudan, as well as the Suez Canal, is safeguarded, and the great dams which guarantee corn in Egypt are under firm control.

THE MILFORD FLIGHT DISASTER

THE tragedy that too often dogs courageous enterprise has given Auckland its first experience of a bad flying accident. The machine which crashed with such calamitous consequences last evening represented the first serious effort to popularise the flying-boat-—a type of aircraft that must ultimately, in spite of setbacks, prove its utility as the most suitable for use around Auckland. There is a peculiar poignancy about the Milford tragedy. For years the Walsh brothers, those pioneers of aviation in this part of the country, carried on a training school and a system of flying services with what now seem the most primitive machines, yet without a serious crash. And now, when the progressive spirit accepts flying as a reasonably safe engagement, two useful lives have been lost in the wreck of a machine of modern and accredited design. Last evening’s sad occurrence cannot promote or accelerate the development of flying services around Auckland, yet it is unlikely to retard it very seriously. The history of aviation is a record of triumph over obstacles and disasters, ttntil now the number of lives lost through flying accidents is insignificant compared with the extent to which aircraft are flown. This unfortunately cannot alleviate the poignant sorrow of relatives and friends who have suffered an acute personal loss through last evening’s crash. Both victims were well known and popular, and his fine war record and excellent personal qualities make the death of Captain Harkness, who was to some extent a public figure and had virtually consecrated his life to the advancement of aviation, a loss to the community as well as a painful and almost crushing shock to the members of his family. Though the truth of the unhappy occurrence may never be definitely known, its general features will in due course he reviewed by authorities competent to sift the technical details. Mechanical failure, or the shade of uncertainty with which even the most skilful pilot must approach an unfamiliar type of machine, may have been contributing causes. The crowd last evening showed a tendency to exhibit a ghoulish curiosity, which is the way with crowds the world over, though it might have been prevented in this case by a more adequate force of police. On the other hand, the Harbour Board, the residents of the vicinity, and the swimmers of the Milford Surf Club, gave very real and practical assistance, and Mr. Douglas Mill, by alighting and taking off in brilliant fashion on a narrow strip of beach, must have done a good deal to restore the wavering confidence of those who viewed the tragedy as the doom of Auckland aviation.