Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

IV

The ukase of November 22, 1924, had two main objectives. In the first place it was desired to put the fear of God into the breasts of the Egyptians. This result was obtained. In the second instance it was deemed opportune to strike while the iron was hot and to reverse with one stroke the former British policy in regard to Nile water.

But when the morrow afforded time for reflection it was perceived that an official undertaking given by the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, in the British House of Commons on February 28, 1922, made it extremely difficult for England to enforce the letter of this "right about face" order. It will be recalled that Downing Street had evolved for Egypt a new form of sovereignty, that of independence "with reservations". In giving birth to this rara avis Mr. Lloyd George said:

The final clause of the Declaration defines the special relations between His Majesty's Government and Egypt. It declares that the following four points are absolutely reserved to the discretion of His Majesty's Government:

(a) The security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt; (b) The defence of Egypt against all foreign aggression or interference direct or indirect;

(c) The protection of foreign interests in Egypt and the protection of minorities, and

(d) The Sudan.

We are prepared to make agreements with the Egyptian Government upon these matters in a spirit of mutual accommodation whenever a favorable opportunity arises for the conclusion of such agreements. But until such agreements, satisfactory both to ourselves and to the Egyptian Government, are concluded, the status quo will remain intact.

This meant in plain language, that until London and Cairo got together, the Sudan had to remain the tail to Egypt's kite, come what may, come what will. I mean by this that the British Foreign Office so construed its own words as soon as it recovered from the shock of the Stack crime.

Ziwar Pasha, the Egyptian Prime Minister, an Egyptian patriot and in no sense unfriendly to England, wrote to Lord Allenby that the water clause in the ultimatum had aroused very great anxiety in Egypt. He reminded the High Commissioner

that the Egyptian Government had always maintained that the development of the Sudan should not be of a nature to harm irrigation in Egypt or to prejudice the future projects which were necessary to meet her rapidly increasing population. He added that he believed that he was not mistaken in affirming that this principle had been fully admitted by His Britannic Majesty's Government, and he therefore invited the High Commissioner to revoke the instructions given to the Sudan:

Lord Allenby replied that the British Government has no intention of trespassing on the natural historic rights of Egypt in the waters of the Nile and in giving instructions to the Sudan Government the British Government had intended that they be construed in this sense. Moved by these considerations His Majesty's Government was disposed to direct the Sudan Government not to give effect to the previous instructions regarding the unlimited development of the Gezira mentioned in the note of November 22, on the understanding that an expert committee composed of Mr. J. J. Canter Cremers, as Chairman, who has been chosen by an agreement between the two Governments, Mr. R. H. McGregor, British delegate, and Abd el Hamid Pasha Suleiman, who had been selected by the Egyptian Government, shall meet not later than February 15, for the purpose of examining the subject and proposing a basis on which irrigation can be carried out with full consideration for the interests of Egypt and without detriment to her natural historic rights.

In commenting upon this correspondence the semi-official London Times points out that the water of the Blue Nile, at its low stage, had in the past been earmarked for the Sudan by eminent irrigation authorities, and that the White Nile had been similarly attributed to Egypt. The article adds that

the only justification for the appointment of the new commission can be the hope that its recommendations will lead to the final settlement to the mutual satisfaction of both countries of a question that has been allowed to lose its purely technical character and embitter their relations. Such a settlement would take the form of a friendly agreement between Egypt and the Sudan which would establish the vested rights of each, lay down a system for the allocation of available and future supplies of water, and set up machinery whereby the agreement should be interpreted, differences of opinion between the two Governments adjusted, further conservation works decided upon and the proportion of their cost allotted to the two countries.

I have burdened my text with these quotations because I have felt that the documents should speak for themselves. I have

thought, however, that it might be interesting to see what the semi-official London Times has had to say about the matter. It is so often inspired that laymen are entitled to attach importance to its statements. I must hasten to add, nevertheless, that the Mr. Cremers who was made Chairman of this Board was a Hollander. He was a consulting Engineer attached to the Dutch Ministry of Waterways and Dutch Delegate on the Central Commission of the Rhine. His credentials were therefore of the highest quality. But why this post was taken away from the United States is a mystery to me. Perhaps, I should not say that this billet "was taken away from the United States", but here are the facts. During the latter years of the war a bitter controversy went on as to projects for augmenting the Nile Water supply. Two distinguished Englishmen fought to the knife and from the knife to the hilt. Egyptian public opinion was very much interested in the controversy as one of the two antagonists, Sir William Willcocks, an engineer of repute and of high character, charged the British Adviser to the Egyptian Ministry of Public Works with having prepared plans for conservation work on the upper Nile based upon erroneous data. The discussion widened, and Lord Allenby in the autumn of 1919 appointed a commission to inquire into the whole water problem, except that of a division of the supply between Egypt and the Sudan. This issue was not submitted. In those days, just after the Armistice, all thoughts turned to America as the one and only place to seek the "foreign" member of this commission. The outstanding ability of Mr. H. T. Cory, of California, called his name to the attention of the Anglo-Egyptian authorities. He was chosen. He fulfilled his mission with the success characteristic of all of his work. I have repeatedly heard both Englishmen and Egyptians speak in the highest terms of his services. His report submitted, Mr. Cory returned to the United States. Of course neither he nor any American had a right of preëmption to a seat upon the new Board, but it does seem passing strange that in 1924 a Dutchman should have been called to fill a post that public opinion forced upon an American in 1919.

It was desired that this new commission submit its report before June 30, 1925. It got down to its task, but in April

typhoid fever overtook Mr. Cremers and all work stopped. On June 23, 1925, he died. Mr. McGregor had in the meantime returned to Europe. In view of Mr. Cremers's death it is impossible to say when the report will be ready.

V

I have no inside knowledge as to what form the report of the Commission may take. Will it recognize what Lord Allenby's letter of January 26, 1925, describes as "Egyptian interests and historic rights"? Or will it, as The London Times expressed it, propose a settlement which "would take the form of a friendly agreement between Egypt and the Sudan, which would establish the vested rights of each (and) lay down a system for the allocation of the available and future supplies of water"? I do not know. I am not a prophet. I try to interpret the past and to understand the present. The future lies beyond my ken.

But the official reports of the former British Adviser to the Egyptian Ministry of Public Works, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, have taught me two things:

(1) the quantity of water in the Nile, and

(2) the present and eventual water requirements of Egypt. From this official data I learn that there is not enough water in the Nile—whether one speaks of available or of future supplies— to answer the requirements of both Egypt and of the Sudan. There is not enough to fill Egypt's eventual needs. There was not enough in 1914 to answer Egypt's demands as then existing. Egypt may be literally described as "the river, which is Egypt", meaning the soil formed by the deposit of the silt-laden annual flood. The main part of this land is the Delta, or Lower Egypt, which is triangular in shape. Its apex is at Cairo, its base on the Mediterranean sea. Its area is about 4,800,000 acres or feddans, of which 3,000,000 are cultivated. In the reaches from Cairo to the Sudan frontier there are about 2,500,000 acres or feddans of arable soil, of which 2,200,000 are now cultivated. Thus the combined area of all of the Nile lands of Egypt totals about 7,300,000 acres, of which approximately 5,200,000 are now under the plow.

VI

This article deals with cotton. I therefore hasten to give the figures as to cotton cultivation in Egypt. Here they are:

[blocks in formation]

As at present 5,200,000 acres are being tilled, it follows that in round figures 30 per cent. of this acreage is now under cotton culture. The crops produced since 1920 have been as follows:

[blocks in formation]

It has already been pointed that Egypt still has 2,100,000 acres which have not yet been utilized. Of this, however, 200,000 in the lake zone of Lower Egypt should be reserved for pisciculture. This reduces the net available maximum increase of cultivation in Egypt to 1,900,000 feddans or acres.

Now, Egypt has a population of 14,000,000 souls. They and their cattle must be fed. The fellah, therefore, raises sugar, wheat, corn, rice, onions, barley and clover. These crops absorb approximately 70 per cent of the present cultivated surface of the country. It is reasonable to suppose that this proportion of 70 per cent. for the general crops and of 30 per cent. for cotton will be maintained even when, at some future date, the entire available superficies of the land pays tribute to the farmer. This means that in round figures 570,000 more acres will, in time, be put under cotton cultivation.

During the last five years the Egyptian fellah has got out of

« ÖncekiDevam »