SUEZ CANAL

Wairarapa Times-Age, 27 May 1939, Page 11

SUEZ CANAL

WHAT IT MEANS TO GREAT BRITAIN VITAL LINK WITH INDIA. CLAIMS BY ITALY. Speaking recently in Rome on the twentieth anniversary of Fascism. Signor Mussolini declared that the Suez Canal was one of three problems which had to be settled between Italy and France. But where does Britain stand? Most Englishmen believe that the country holding the Suez holds India, and therefore the control of the Canal, must always be in our hands. But the canal is not a British possession. It belongs to Egypt, the present lessee being the Suez Canal Company, whose agreement expires in 1968, when it reverts to Egypt. We have come to regard the Suez as a vital link between Britain and certain parts of the Empire, but an ever-open canal is no less important to France and Holland. Up to the present, representatives of these three empires, together with two Egyptians, have formed the Board of the Suez Canal Company and direct its affairs, but now Italy is demanding that either these directors shall resign in favour of an international board, or that Italians shall be given seats, their number to be in proportion to the tonnage of Italian shipping passing through. A FRENCHMAN’S VISION. It must never be forgotten, however, that the idea of a canal through the Isthmus of Suez germinated in the brain of a Frenchman, that . French engineers designed and calculated the work, and it was mainly French capital with the help of Egyptian labour which enabled it to be carried through. France subscribed 52 per cent of the cost, Egypt 44 per cent. Ferdinand de Lesseps, whose scheme it was, laboured the greater part of his life trying to interest the chiefs of European States in his project, but everywhere—even in England—he was mocked at as a rom’antic, impractical dreamer. Lord Palmerston set his face implacably against all official help for de Lesseps, but the Frenchman refused to accept defeat, and was nearly fifty-five when 'the first sod was turned.

He had great difficulty in obtaining fresh water for his labourers and, until the Sweetwater Canal was cut paid as much as £4OO a day to have it carted by camels! Enemies caused trouble by accusing the Canal Company of employing forced labour, and arrangements ,far more costly than anticipated, had to be made for working them in long shifts. This involved the employment of 60,000 natives. Not only de Lesseps but his backers shared these anxieties and set-backs, and the reward for their courage is the ninety-nine-year monopoly of the waterway, granted by Egypt. Just after the completion of the Canal, Prince Ismail, Khedive of Egypt, fell into financial difficulties and eventually owed millions of pounds. He was so desperate that he decided to mortgage his shares, numbering 176,602, and sent them to London, in zinc-lined wooden crates. The news reached Disraeli who, at the inception of the project, had also laughed the idea to scorn. But a Canal through which vessels were already passing was different from a dream canal in blue prints without financial backing, and he was astute enough to realise what control. or even part control, would mean to Britain. On his own initiative he borrowed the money from Baron Nathaniel de Rothschild, pledging his word that the Government would refund it. Disraeli paid no more than £4,076.662 for the shares, and since .1875, the date of the deal, Britain has received more than £40.000,000 in dividends, and their market value a year ago exceeded £46,000,000. STRICTLY NEUTRAL ZONE. If the Canal were closed to Britain tomorrow, we would not starve, for Canadian and South African products would still reach these shores, but industry would be seriously hampered, if not crippled. Butter, wool, and meat from Australia and New Zealand, rice, jute, and shellac from India, and other important commodities like mica,, sulphur, lead, tea, and rubber from Ceylon, Burma, and the East Indies, would all have to be sent round the Cape. Our merchant fleet would be open to attack over a route of some thousands of extra miles. This applies equally to France, Holland, and Italy, to whose empires the canal is also the shortest route. Because of the number of Canal shares now owned by the Government, the question naturally arises: “In time of war. would Britain close the Suez Canal?”

Technically she has no right to do so, for when granting the charter, the

Khedive of Egypt declared solemnly that “the company is bound strictly to grant absolute equality of treatment to vessels of every nationality,” and continues further to add that “the Great Maritime Canal from Suez to Pelusa, and the ports that are connected therewith, §hall be open for ever as a neutral "channel of navigation.” * It is not common knowledge that a British force closed the Canal in 1882. but this was followed by a conference of nations and the Suez Canal Convention was signed in 1888. This has made the Canal free and open in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel without distinction of flag. It is not the neutrality of the Canal that matters, but what happens at each end. During the 1914-18 war, enemy ships were not impeded in the Canal, but were politely escorted into open waters where units of the Allied fleets waited, ready to pounce. They maintained a virtual, but legal blockade. During the war British troops were stationed on the Canal to protect it from attack, and according to the Anglo-Egyptian agreement in 1936. we have contracted to defend the Canal for a further twenty years. ITALY ARGUES HER CASE. Italy argues that she has a special case for representation on the Board, and points out that at first all the directors were French, until in 1875 three Britons were given places. In 1883 seven more were brought in, and the following year a Dutchman was given a seat. So that now the Board consists of 32: 19 French, 10 British, 2 Egyptian, and 1 Dutch. Britain could possibly have obtained a controlling directorate on the Board when she purchased the Khedive’s shares, but Disraeli had been violently opposed to the scheme. He realised his mistake when the Canal was completed and was so relieved at the offer of representation that he accepted without demur the number of seats doled out to Britain. Italian directors on the Board could make no difference to the way in which the Canal is run. Her claim is based purely on prestige. Italy says that today she is the Company’s second best customer and that her tonnage reached 4,625,818 in 1938. The Suez is gradually decreasing in importance to Britain. In twenty years

all British control will end, and a few years later Egypt will take over. As an insurance against that day huge airports in South Africa, Colombo, Singapore and Australia are being developed. In twenty-five years goods will travel by air, and air services will link British possessions in southern latitudes with South America, while from Britain planes will make single hops to those countries, as well as to India, China, and the Malay States. Suez is by no means so important to us as it was in pre-war times.