"Magna Carta "?

"Magna Carta"?

Across dazzling millions of little sun-flecked wavelets Prime Minister Mohammed Mahmoud Pasha last week came sailing home. Smiles softened his arrogant face. Fellow passengers noted with what gusto His Excellency ate. Oranges he seemed especially to relish. Here was a contented traveler who had been to distant London and brought the draft text of a proposed treaty which optimistic phrase-coiners were already calling "The Magna Carta of Egyptian Liberty."

Best minds have often contended that Egypt ought not to have a Magna Carta. For example, Citizen Theodore Roosevelt, speaking at London in 1910, warmed the cockles of British hearts by shouting: "If you feel that you have no right to be in Egypt, if you do not wish to establish and keep order there, why, then, by all means get out of Egypt! . . . Some nation must govern Egypt. . . . I hope and believe that you will decide that it is your duty to be that nation!" Citizen Roosevelt had just topped off his famed African hunting expedition with an Egyptian junket on camelback. He spoke as a keen, impartial eye-witness of Egypt's tendency to graft, misgovernment.

Successive British Governments have done their Rooseveltian duty ever since. True, by the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1922 the status of "Independent Kingdom" was conferred on Egypt; but Imperial Britain reserved the right to "protect" her "ally" by keeping a military establishment in Egypt and a veritable army of occupation in the Sudan. Duty might have been done along this line indefinitely but for two developments: 1) Egyptian public opinion has crystalized against British occupation so sharply that Deputies returned at the last election were almost solidly anti-British and King Fuad of Egypt (a British puppet) had to dissolve the Egyptian Parliament for three years to maintain the status quo. 2) There has come to power in London a Cabinet of Laborites who believe that, though Britain must continue to police Egypt's Suez Canal (route to India, "spinal column of the empire"),* still it should be possible to allow Egyptians substantial freedom in the Nile valley and autonomous rule in such great cities as Alexandria and Cairo.

Fortnight ago the gist of the proposed new treaty was indiscreetly hinted before it was complete by Right Honorable Tom Shaw, bullfrog-voiced unstatesmanly Secretary for War in the new British Labor Cabinet (TIME, Aug. 12). Last week, as Prime Minister Mohammed sailed home to Egypt, the British Foreign Office released the text of the agreement which he carried, announced that it represents the "extreme limit" to which the Labor Government will go "to achieve a lasting and honorable settlement of the outstanding questions between Great Britain and Egypt."

Treaty Keynote: Article I is a single sentence: "The military occupation of Egypt by the forces of His Britannic Majesty is terminated."

Certainly these 14 clean-cut words ought to come in handy when Mohammed Pasha tries to get the treaty ratified by a to-be-elected Egyptian Parliament. The only thing wrong--or even peculiar--about Article I is the interpretation placed upon it by Articles X, XI and XV.

Article X provides that the Suez Canal Zone shall continue to be guarded by "such forces as His Britannic Majesty deems necessary." Article XI states that "the presence of these troops shall not constitute in any manner an occupation." Article XV confirms the British occupation (called "status") of the Sudan. In short the real meaning of Article I--the keystone of the treaty--is about as follows: Excepting the Suez Canal and the Sudan, military occupation of the rest of Egypt by the British will be terminated.

This is a great and vital concession. Weasel-words were used to make it seem even greater, but the fact remains that Britain has conceded much--more perhaps than would have been approved by Theodore Roosevelt, who frankly doubted the capacity of lackadaisical Egyptians to govern themselves well.

Treaty Points. 1) Britain shall foster instead of balk Egypt's long repressed wish to be admitted to the League of Nations; 2) Responsibility for the lives and property of foreigners in the areas vacated by British troops shall be assumed by the Egyptian Government; 3) Great Britain shall use her influence with other Powers to induce them to renounce extraterritoriality rights now enjoyed by their nationals in Egypt under the system of treaties known as Capitulations; 4) Egypt and Britain shall reaffirm their alliance, and the King of Egypt's army shall remain at the disposal of Britain's King-Emperor "in the event of war or the menace of war;" 5) In token of Egypt's new measure of freedom, the military British High Commissioner at Cairo to be replaced by a civilian British Ambassador. Also, Egypt to be permitted to send to London an Egyptian Ambassador.

Thus, although Egypt must remain in partial tutelage she may at least exchange her big-stick schoolmaster for a polite tutor.

Sir Percy. People named Percy are supposed to be polite, career diplomats even politer. For 25 years Sir Percy Loraine has been a British career diplomat, working his way up from Attache at Constantinople in 1904 to British Minister at Athens. "What an ideal choice!" thought many an Egyptian, last week, when the Laborites at London despatched a cable transferring Sir Percy to the Nile.

Pending ratification of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, Sir Percy Loraine will have to be known as "High Commissioner," but will act to polite perfection the role of Ambassador. His virtues are those of a trained and astute negotiant who for years has had a finger in all the diplomatic pies of the Near East. If any Briton can ingratiate the Empire with suspicious Egyptians it is the able knight hight Percy.

Imperial Reaction. Loudest howls against the British Labor policy of conciliating Egypt came, of course, from Australia. The kangaroo continent depends for defense against a hypothetical Japanese attack on British warboats which would rush to her aid through the Suez Canal. Last week at Melbourne the comment of the influential Argus was typical. "PLAYING WITH FIRE?" queried its editor, then slapped down a bunch of even more prying questions:

"Has Egypt justified her claim to rank equally with enlightened Democracies? What assurance can she give that there will be no relapse into the former corruption and debasement? Can she be trusted?"

Comment in London was on strictly party lines. "I am almost glad!" sarcastically observed new-made Viscount Brentford, an arch-Conservative famed as one-time Home Secretary Sir William ("Jix") Joynson-Hicks (TIME, July 8). "I am almost glad that the Socialist [Labor] Government have shown their true colors so soon. They have announced the complete surrender of the British position in Egypt."

Labor papers heralded a new era of concord. Laborite First Lord of the Admiralty Albert Victor Alexander countered Conservative attacks sharply. "The safety of the Suez Canal," he said, "will not be sacrificed. It is vital to us as an international link."

Most significant was the attitude of the Liberal press in voicing guarded approval. There was nothing to indicate that the present British Government's Labor-Liberal support in the House of Commons can be split on the Egyptian issue when Parliament reconvenes in October.

In Cairo. Much more dubious are chances that the treaty can be ratified at Cairo. The opposition press in Egypt is partially gagged, but when last there was an Egyptian Parliament (TIME, July 30, 1928) the Opposition seemed in solid phalanx behind the demand that Britain evacuate the Suez Canal and the Sudan. With more optimism than he probably felt Prime Minister Mohammed Mahmoud Pasha said last week: "I share the earnest hope of His Britannic Majesty's government that the proposals will be examined by all patriotic Egyptians without distinction of party in the same friendly and conciliatory spirit in which they were conceived."

* Travelers through the Suez Canal during the War still maintain that no unsung soldiers were more heroic than the thousands of British "Tommies" who camped, fly-bitten, sun-scorched, idle, desolate, along the Canal's length to protect it from German or Turkish raiders.