أوراق مطبوعة عن الوضع السياسي والسياسة العسكرية في مصر [و‎‎٢‎٠] (١٧٦/٣٩)

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government^
Printed for the Committee of Imperial Defence. September 1923.
\
,1 ,:i
SECRET.
. , /w-Tt 1
448-B.
COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
MILITARY POLICY IN EGYPT.
(Previous C.I.D. Papers Nos. 439-B and 44G-B.)
Colonial Office Memorandum.
IN a Foreign Office Memorandum (C.I.D. Paper No. 446-B) circulated to the
members of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the 9th August, certain political
objections are pointed out to the military policy which the War Office consider that
His Majesty’s Government should follow in Egypt. One important point in this
Memorandum appears to call for comment from the Colonial Office. In paragraph 12
of the Memorandum it is suggested that the basis for a standing defence scheme for
the Suez Canal “should be sought in the perpetuation of effective British control
“ over the Soudan and Palestine and the acquisition of such control over the Sinai
“ peninsula.”
2. The position in Palestine is that His Britannic Majesty has accepted a Mandate
for that territory under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. This
Article provides that—
“ Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have
“ reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations
“ can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice
“ and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.”
The peculiar circumstances of Palestine have, however, always been regarded as
demanding more than administrative advice and assistance, and the Principal Allied
Powers agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the
Covenant, to entrust to the Mandatory the actual administration of the territory.
This decision is quoted in the preamble to the Mandate for Palestine, as finally
approved by the Council of the League of Nations, and Article I of that instrument
provides that “ the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administra-
“ tion save as they may be limited by the terms of this Mandate.” The terms of the
Mandate cannot by Article 27 be modified except with the consent of the Council of
the League, and this consent cannot be given if the British or any other member
of the Council dissents.
It appears, then, that, so long as the British Mandate is in force, His Britannic
Majesty will retain full powers of legislation and of administration in Palestine, and
that effective British control can only be relaxed with the consent of His Majesty’s
Government.
3. There are, however, two other methods by which effective British control over
Palestine could be endangered, viz., the abandonment of the Mandate by His Britannic
Majesty, and its termination.
The first of these alternatives would presumably involve the transfer of mandatory
control to another Power, which would then inherit full powers of legislation and of
administration under Article 1 of the Mandate unless some modification of these
powers were subsequently proposed and the representative on the Council of the
League of the Power concerned were instructed to agree. Whatever might be the
scope of any such modification, it is clear that the restoration of effective British
control would in these circumstances be impossible. The second alternative is
foreshadowed in Article 28 of the Mandate, which contains provision for certain rights
being safeguarded in perpetuity and certain obligations being honoured “ in the event
“ of the termination of the Mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory.”
No indication is given of the nature of the regime wdiich would follow this
termination, but it is difficult to see how it could involve a perpetuation of British
control, in view of the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League.
[ 10545]