Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎306v] (617/1220)

*
«
24
• • o-o in to the Montreux Convention, and that
non-discrimination provi* on s hou^ D ^ Bec) _ ett in paris in March had ^
therefore everyone too ^ d’Orsay. The Foreign Office in their telegram
explained the position . ir ? umen ts in support of both views on these questions,
considered that there w g different views had been taken independently
on which, m fact it appeared that^itteren^ did not wish to commit ?
without consultation . 11 on & est i on which they thought in practice would
to either view at the They were, however, most anxious that nothing
prove to be a purely academic one I ney we e in erpretation of the Anglo .
in ^ Montreux »tmn should prejud^ provisions P and the del e gation ° as
Egyptian Treaty m written assurances from the Egyptians tnat nothing
therefore instructed t° '^““ted from the respective rights of the parties
un£r the treaty Pna form which could be quoted in public should the attitude of
His Majesty’s Government on the question of non-discr.m,nation be criticised m
Parliament in General Committee referred to above, the
112 . Alter . a p nTY1P hpfore the Drafting Committee, and formed
non-discrimination pr discussions Some difficulty was experienced in
translating 'the 1 *!! mted Kingdom amendment into French, and efforts on the part
If ^I prfnch delegation to get the provision made more extensive and precise
delegation - ^ “C/d IVtMrd
dOW A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. ^raBhPof g artm"e 2 t together with the cbmments of the Drafting Committee,
SoiiS the fom af^dy referred to in Par, IV of this report. The provision
in^he nrotocol really had'its origin in a totally unacceptable proposal of the
EgStirddegation-a proposal,“however, which really had as its basis their
mfnunum desire to get on record somewhere in the signed documents (o) that the
ohSon must be interpreted in the light of general international practice; and
( 6 ) that it was an obligation which a State with full legislative sovereignty could
undertake The actual provision in the protocol is if anything helpful rather to
the side of the capitulatory Powers than to the Egyptians, since Danzig poTO
legislative sovereignty within the limits of its Constitution, and it can there
be shown that the decision of the Permanent Court with regard to Danzi
applicable. The provision in the Final Act gives effect to the proposal which the
United Kingdom delegation had induced the Egyptian delegation to accept, viz
that the Egyptian Government should declare that they had no mten on o
adopting the contrary policy of discrimination at the end of the transit .
period. This declaration, though not creating a strict legal obligation su jec
interpretation by the Permanent Court, is clearly of very considerable legal ana
diplomatic value. . u rented
113. When these texts were all settled and the convention was bei ©P
for signature on the final Saturday, the United Kingdom delegation a s
obtain from the Egyptians the exchange of letters desired by ihe Foreign
as regards the relation between the Montreux Convention and the Anglo- 0> [
Treaty of xUlliance. The difficult discussions in the Drafting ^p mn ^ ltt€e
non-discrimination had, of course, made it more difficult to obtain thebe .
The Egyptian delegation maintained that they could not admit that the pro
in the treaty imposed any legal obligation upon them as regards non-discii ^
tion lasting beyond the transitional period; and, although the letters w 1
wished them to sign merely left the point open, they were afraid of the iinp r
which would be created in Egypt if any exchange of letters hitherto hep
were revealed in Parliament here at a later date. They therefore propose ^
the letters should be published immediately, and that, in order to
misinterpretation in Egypt, the initiative over this matter should appear o
from them. The letters eventually exchanged between Nahas Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. and
were in satisfactory terms, and are reproduced in Annex 3 of this repoi . ^ at
again, it must be remembered that no foreign delegation had any knowle g ^
there was any difference or discussion between the Foreign Office, the de g ^
and the Egyptians as to the meaning or effect of paragraph 6 of the an
article 13 of the treaty or that these letters were exchanged. . , i oU t to
114. It may be well to record in this connexion that it was P ^ 111 € , uX
,1 T- i.u’ x • —:x £ xi • : r „,.x- Q oTid Q nf the MOBtf
114. it may oe wen to recora in tms connexion tnat it vva P U Montreux
the Egyptians that, in spite of the provisions of articles 8 and 9 of the entruS t
Convention, His Majesty’s Government considered they had the right ^
to the consular court, which they would retain for statut personnel c