Troops Away in Desert

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 845, 13 December 1929, Page 9

Troops Away in Desert

DANGERS OF EGYPT TREATY

Chance for Communists PEERS DEBATE LABOUR’S POLICY British Official W ireless Received 11 a.m. RUGBY. Thursday. THE galleries were crowded for tlie debate in the House of Lords on the Government’s policy toward Egypt. Mr. Stanley Baldwin, Mr. L. S. Ainery and other eiMinisters listened from near the Throne.

Lord Lloyd, formerly High Commissioner iu. Egypt, criticised the proposed treaty. So far from stifling the Egyptians, it was Britain which had created and fostered their sense of nationality and granted them independence in 1922, qualified only by the reservations actually necessary to safeguard the interests of the Empire and the wellbeing of the Egyptians themselves. The safety of the Suez Canal was so vital to the Empire that not the least risk could be taken regarding it. The Government was proposing to station British soldiers in a black desert, where it would take 20 years of spending to render the area reasonably fit for a permanent garrison. How were they going to help if grave disorders arose in the cities? The Communists were sure to see in the impending changes an opportunity l’or repeating what they had done in China and Palestine. Lord Thomson, Secretary for Air, in reply to Lord Lloyd, after pointingout that White Paper containing the exchange of Notes between Egypt and Britain could not be regarded as the draft treaty, said the whole purpose of the 1922 declaration was to declare Egypt a sovereign State, subject to certain reservations. The Government stood by that declaration, in regard to foreign intervention in Egypt. As to the risk to the security of Imperial communications, the Govern-

rnent had' throughout paid the most scrupulous attention to the opinion of the military experts. He denied the suggestion that the removal of British troops to east of meridian 22 involved stationing them in the desert. On the contrary, there were places in that area which were health resorts. Under the proposals, it was provided that if the Egyptian Government did not maintain law and order, and if the lives and property of foreigners were jeopardised by its neglect, the treaty would be contravened, and he questioned the interpretation that it would in such cases be necessary to go to Geneva for a ruling, ’’’hat point could, however, be carefully studied. The vital interests of the British Empire, represented as they were by the four reserved points of 1922, were met by the proposals. The Suez Canal, as a canal, was as safe as it had ever been, and probably safer. The lives of foreigners would be just as well protected as under the present system, and the treaty of alliance with Egypt would safeguard that country against foreign aggression, and British rights were entirely established. The Sudan question had been met in the only fair and reasonable way. which gave absolute satisfaction to its Governor-General. The motion by the Marquess of Salisbury, regretting the precipitancy with which the Labour Government’s policy was entered upon and the risk it entailed to the security of Imperial communications, was carried by 46 votes to 33.