مجموعة ٣/١٥(١) "مصر. إلغاء الامتيازات في مؤتمر واتفاقية مونترو ١٩٣٧" [و‎‎٣‎٠‎٦] (١٢٢٠/٦١٦)

23
th t it was, in fact, more natural to read the provision of the treaty as being part
fthe transitional regime. No action was taken on this matter for two days after
the despatch of this telegram, but, on the 21 st April, it became necessary to submit
the amendment to the General Committee. I did so in a prepared speech, the
tPims of which had been to some extent concerted beforehand with the Egyptian
delegation and the general lines of which had also been communicated to the
French The Egyptian delegation accepted the amendment in a speech by
Makram Pasha of the general lines of which, though not its exact words, we had
also been informed beforehand. In my speech the following points were made
( 1 ) That the non-discrimination provision covered legislation of all kinds and
was not confined to fiscal legislation.
(21 That it prohibited discrimination in fact as well as in law.
(3 That it must be interpreted in accordance with international practice and
1 decisions of the Permanent Court with regard to non-discrimination
obligations of this kind. Reference was specifically made to a decision
of the Permanent Court of International Justice with regard to the
treatment of Polish nationals in Danzig, where the Permanent Court
decided in the sense indicated in point ( 2 ).
(41 That it was an obligation of a kind which a fully independent fetate
possessing legislative sovereignty could perfectly well undertake.
( 5 s ) That as an obligation it should be confined to the transitional regime.
/a\ That the fact that this obligation was limited to the twelve-year period
did not mean that the Egyptian Government meant to adopt a policy
of discrimination thereafter. On the contraij, their policy wojhd
always be against discrimination, and to give effect to this policy thev
wished to conclude before the end of the transitional regime bilatera
reciprocal conventions with the different capitulatory Powers.
108. All these points were accepted by Makram Pasha in his speech who
however, also made the point that the fact that a gi\en ega
affected foreigners more than nationals was not alone su cien he gave
legal provision was discriminatory. In order to illustra e is & .
various examples (which appeared to be unexceptionable) of
taxation, the profession of broker in Egypt was at
confined to foreigners, but this would not make it discrimination if the g„ P
Government imposed a patente tax on the profession ot y^er, ^ ^ cneeches
109. It was generally accepted at the conference that these two s t >eect^
should be of particular importance hereafter as regards e i p
Pr ° V il0 n ' The Foreign Office in a telegram received^ two or three
approved the attitude of the delegation in this matter as re^c themselves
the Montreux Convention. They were, however, reluctant to commit themsew
now to the view that as between the parties to the ^g &yp Alliance was
effect of paragraph 6 of the annex to article 13 of ^li'rGeared up did not
confined to the transitional period, and until this ques ' demanding
feel justified in pressing the French Government to ^ dGegation’s
permanent guarantees in this and other matters as prop
telegram of the 18th April. . v , . , • ^ - c ; nri ; n the Treaty
111. It appeared that the question (i) whet ler 1 P treaty obligation
of Alliance was intended to operate as a separa . Government which as
between His Majesty’s Government and the Eg}p ‘ i ia 0 f the Treaty of
regards its duration was subject to the provisions o a ^ ^ article 13, it
Alliance, or (ii) whether, like the other P r o v ' sl . A GoV ernment and Egypt,
was a provision, agreed m advance between His - «J j t-t. W ould only come
Which was to be offered to the capitulatory Powers and whichjoum^^^^
into effect when incorporated in a convention wi • permanent legal
operate for the period fixed therein (in whm ca >, _ well as by ourselves
obligation was rejected as impossible by the ^ orel S 't 0 f the transitional
and the Egyptians, its duration would natura y ne o-otiations with the
regime), had not only not been discussed during been discussed between the
Egyptins, but that these questions ^ ^ b " the negotiators
Foreign Office and the negotiators of the treaty imas i ne d that the second
of the treaty themselves. The delegation at f Tv nrum ent A when it said the
view was necessarily implied by paragraph 13 of Document A,