DALTON AND HENDERSON

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 164, 13 August 1929, Page 6

DALTON AND HENDERSON

TIig Forcign Sccretary in the -MacDonald Minisfry and its Secrotary for Foreign Afiairs have Ijoth been explaining the views of the Alinistry on Egypt. They both admit that the sal'ety of Ihe -Suez Canal depcnds upon the maintenance of a Brilish military force in Egypt, and so concede that Egypt 's "friendlineps" towards Britain is not suffieient to ensure that safety. Of course, this is tho considered view of every responsible person in Britain, and equally of course it raises tho cpiestion why the MacDonald Ministrv should be so anxious to raeddle with existing arrangements. These provide for the distribution of that force being left to the judgraent of the British military authorities. Messrs TiIacDonald and Henderson and Dalton do not agree with this, and in disagreeing display a dcplorable lack of sinceritv. Their latest pronnnciamento, voiced by Alr Dalton at a party meeting at Welwyn, declares that the British forces in Egypt are "seattered all over it," and that real safety depends upon their being confined strictly to the canal zone.

If the iMaeDonald Government knows anything at all of the situation it must be aware that the generalisation that the British forees in Egypt are "seattered all over it" is worse than rlietorical exaggeration ; it is, in fact, untrue. Moreover, and in any case, the distribution of the British forces there is properly a question for the military authorities, and not for civilian party wirepullers. This does not appeal to the MacDonald Ministry, which declares that it knows better, and not only that these military forces should be strictly confined to the actual canal zone, but that if this is done the safety of the canal will be greater than at present. Well, it is satisfactory to note the concession that the safety of the canal is a highly important matter, and that to ensure it the presence pf a military force in Egypt is necessary, but it is highly unsatisfactory to observe the remarkable claim that the disposition of this force should not be in the hands of the military authorities, but in those of civilian politicians. The MacDonald Ministry denies that in this it has any preference for this or that political party in Egypt. It loves them all with equal fervour. Well, of course, but why the diselaimer? It seems to remind us of the subtle French proverb which sums up the real value of excuses. Nobody had accused the MacDonald Government of preferring one political party in Egypt over another. Why, then, the haste to plead "not guilty"? Apparently beeause the MacDonald Adminis- . tration feared that it might be so charged, and was anxious to deny the impeachment before the impeachment was made. As a matter of fact, the speech here commented itpon supiDlies direct proof that while the MacDonald .Ministry denies interfering with Egypt's internal politics, it is really interfering with them substantially. The speech admits that the MacDonald Ministry, on making to Egypt the offer, a main feature of which is the concentration of the British forces in Egypt within the actual canal zone, made this conditional upon Egypt returning to Parliamentary Government. We have nothing to urge for or against Parliamentary Government in Egypt. That may be the most suitable form of rule there, or, again,. it may not be, but this is a question for the people of Egypt themselves to determine. It is obvious that in dealing with Ihe military situation in Egypt the MacDonald Ministry is favouring one section of Egvptian politicians against another. One section of the Egyptian people favours its existing form of rule, the other prefers Parliamentary rule. We do not know which is the stronger, numerically, but this is beside the real point. This is that Mr MacDonald prefers Parliamentary rule for Egypt, and to commend it offers to concentrate the British forces within the canal zone if Parliamentary rule is restored. It may be assumed that the present disposition of the British forces in Egypt | is with tlie approval of the British military authorities — is, - in faet, imposed by them — and Mr MacDonald says he will over-ride the military authorities as to this if the political party in Egypt favouring Parliamentary rule is given an innings. prom our point of vTiew it is of no importance whether Parliamentary rule is or is not Ihe better for Egypt. The real crux •p that AIv MacDonald is interfering i >n Egyptian politics by offering an ■ulucement to Egypt to snpport the ■••liamentarv rule party.