The Suez Canal in World Affairs (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Suez Canal is the gateway to the Orient, the connecting link between East and West, between Britain and the members of the Commonwealth in the East.

The story of the Canal and the struggle for control of this area is told by Hugh J. Schonfield in “The Suez Canal in World Affairs,” published by Constellation Books, London.

Many centuries ago the wealth of the East was brought to the Mediterranean via Egypt. About 2,000 years B.C. a canal was built joining the Red Sea and the Nile. This canal, called the Canal of the Pharoahs, was silted up and rebuilt during successive reigns and renamed under succeeding empires. Finally it was closed in 776 A.D. while Egypt was under Arab domination. Then trade between the East and West declined, in the 13th and 14th centuries Marco Polo and other travellers opened up the Northern Overland route to India and China. The growth of the aggressive power of Turkey blocked this route. A new route was sought. Christopher Columbus sailed west and Vasco de Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope. The Cape route gave successively the monopoly of Eastern trade to the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French and the British. To gain and maintain this monopoly Britain made herself mistress of the seas.

France with her southern seaboard on the Mediterranean was interested in opening up the ancient route to the East through Egypt. But competition with the Cape route was impossible while goods had to be carried by camel to Alexandria, then transhipped. A canal between Suez and Cairo was suggested, but the political and practical obstacles seemed insurmountable. Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire and it was thought that there was a difference of 30ft. in the sea levels of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. English merchants aware of French designs sought privileges in Egypt. Both French and English governments sought influence in Egypt and Turkey and when war broke out between England and France in 1793, France tried to establish herself there, but Britain put an end to these territorial ambitions by defeating the French at the Battle of the Nile.

About 30 years after, an Englishman Lieut. Waghorn started a postal route to India via Egypt demonstrating practically the advantages of this route. Engineers investigated the question of the difference in sea levels and a sect founded by the utopian socialist Saint Simon set up an organisation to examine the question of a canal financially and technically. An alternative scheme for building a railroad was put forward, supported by Britain. But France continued to retain her interest in the canal. Both Governments sought concessions from the Viceroy of Egypt who played the one against the other. When the Viceroy died, Britain received a concession to build a railroad because she had paid court to his successor. The dispute between France and Britain might have become serious if they had not been already allied in prosecuting the Crimean War.

The advantage gained by Britain was offset when Ferdinand de Lesseps received a concession from Mahomet Said, the next Viceroy, authorising him to form an international company to build a canal. The British Government opposed the venture and effectively warned off British capital from taking part in it. But after the construction of the canal Britain realised her mistake and bought up about half the shares. Then in 1882 when rioting broke out in Alexandria British troops took possession. Britain wished to preserve the right to defend the Canal if any Power attacked Egypt and to guarantee with other Powers to keep the Canal open in peace and in war. Other Powers disagreed but a compromise was reached with the Convention of 1888, which made Turkey nominal guardian and guaranteed to keep the Canal open in any circumstances. But Britain still remained in Egypt.

Germany, seeking means of expansion, seized on the possibilities of the undeveloped near East and set out to build the Berlin-Bhagdad Railway which would offset Britain's domination of Egypt and her use of the Suez Canal. When war broke out between Britain and Germany in 1914, Egypt lined up with Britain and closed the Canal to enemy shipping. Turkey, seeking to regain control in Egypt set out to invade it. Britain made Egypt a Protectorate and with the defeat of Germany and Turkey became guardian of the Canal.

In 1922, Egypt was declared an independent stale but the Egyptian Government was dissatisfied with the conditions of the declaration. Italy's longstanding threat to Britain in the Mediterranean culminated in the declaration of war against France and Britain in 1940. The Canal was attacked by air and Egypt was attacked by land from Libya. Because of Italy's lack of success Germany took a hand. For a considerable time the Mediterranean was closed to allied shipping but with the halting of Rommel at El Alamein the Canal was made safe to send aid to Russia in the effort to defeat the Japanese in the Far East.

Since World War II, Egypt has sought to terminate the 1936 Agreement which allows British troops to occupy the Canal Zone. But Egypt, like all other belligerents in war, has shown that she won't pay any attention to the 1888 Convention which guaranteed to keep the Canal open to all shipping in peace or war. In the conflict between Israel and the Arab League, Egypt stopped supplies going to Israel.

Mr. Schonfield's story of the Canal shows its importance to the capitalist Powers in peace and in war.

Today Egypt wants Britain to evacuate her troops from the Canal Zone but Britain is reluctant to do so until she is assured of strong Middle East defences. Certain sections of British capitalist class opinion would like to make the Canal Zone the central base in these defences because of its geographical position, and oppose handing over to Egypt this base with its hundreds of millions of pounds worth of installations. Other sections of the British capitalist class remember the limited use of the Canal during the two world wars and its vulnerability to land attack and are of the opinion that the North East Mediterranean coast with the mountains behind forming a barrier to landborne troops would provide a more suitable base. They claim that the Canal will decline in importance with the increasing use of air instead of the sea for conveying troops and equipment.

To understand why the Canal is important it is necessary to know something about present day society. The means of producing society’s needs are owned by a small section of society, the capitalist class, and the vast majority, the working class, must sell their labour power to the few who own those means of production. In exchange for their labour power the workers receive wages that are very often barely enough to live on. What the workers produce over their wages allows the capitalist class to live comfortably and increase their capital. To realise this surplus the capitalist class must sell their goods and must find raw materials with which they can be produced. This means that there must be trade routes to bring the raw materials from where they are produced to where they are needed and to take the finished articles to the markets where they can be sold. And to protect these trade routes in event of war the different sections of the capitalist class struggle for control of strategic points.

Mr. Schonfield would like to sec the dream of Ferdinand de Lesseps come true. He would like the Canal used for the benefit of humanity. He would like the Canal used to build up the backward countries and raise their standards of living. But if the Canal is to be used for the benefit of humanity the means of living will have to be the property of all society. Then goods won’t be produced and exchanged for the profit of the few but distributed solely for the use of all.

J. T.

The wrangle over Egypt (1946)

From the June 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Let it first of all be made quite clear that in all the deliberations that have taken place, and will take place, over the evacuation of British troops from Egypt, the welfare of the Egyptian worker and peasant has never been an issue. Whether under the domination of British or Egyptian masters, they will not see much difference in their lot. Whether their rulers are British or Egyptian, they will still have to eke out a miserable existence; they will still have to labour from sunrise to sunset in their master’s fields; they will still be riddled with disease; in short, they will still be a subject class, ruthlessly and viciously exploited for profit.

What is, in fact, at issue in Egypt, as is quite openly admitted and taken for granted by both parties, is the preservation of the safety of British capitalism’s lines of communication through the Eastern Mediterranean. Opinions differ, however, as to the best means.

Said Mr. Anthony Eden, for the Conservatives, in the debate in the House of Commons: —

“His first complaint about the Prime Minister’s announcement at this time was that it gave the impression, by the manner in which the withdrawal of troops was referred to, that their purpose in Egypt was something other than it was-- namely, the Defence of the Canal Zone.”

(Times, 8/5/46.)

And Mr. Attlee, for the Labour Party, in the same debate:—

“The Government were as much concerned as anybody else with the security of the communications of the Commonwealth and Empire, with the security of the Canal, and with maintaining the best possible relations with Egypt and her continued alliance with this country, and it was precisely for those reasons that they were making the approach they were making.''

(Our Italics.) (Times, 8/5/46.)

What, then, is behind this, at first sight, rather sudden decision to withdraw troops from Egypt? The reasons are political and also military.

For many years past, the whole of the Middle East, of which Egypt is hut one part, has been the focal point of steadily expanding nationalistic feeling. During the past war, and in the period since, this nationalistic fervour has become even more intense. The recent outbursts in Egypt against British troops are an illustration of the feeling against the foreigner. Although still doing their utmost to retain as much influence as possible in the area, the capitalist Powers concerned have had to take note of this desire for independence.

That Mr. Herbert Morrison fully appreciates this is shown by the following quotation from his speech in the House of Commons: —

“If the British Government had told the Egyptian Government that they would give no undertaking about the withdrawal from Egyptian soil, the negotiations would not have gone on and then the British Government would have had to face certain consequences. There would be sharp antagonism on the part of the Egyptian Government and Parliament; almost certain disturbance and riots, possibly even revolution, and it might have led to British forces being attacked and having to defend themselves.”

(Times, ibid.)

Then there are military aspects that indicate the conceptions on which the new policy is based. The following statement is from an article in the Observer, (12/5/46) : —

”The Canal . . . . can he bombed and made unusable by aerial mining operations. Any Power with the use of air bases in the Eastern Mediterranean and a modern air force can reasonably hope to achieve this. The 10,000 British troops that the 1936 Treaty permits to be quartered in the Canal Zone are no defence against such attack The defence of the Canal itself is largely irrelevant. The vital area is the whole Middle East, with Palestine as its natural centre . . . Now that it is proposed that Egypt . . . . is to be militarily evacuated, there is only one part of the Middle East where the British have retained the right to keep troops: Palestine and the neighbouring State of Transjordan. It is my contention that this limited area can provide an adequate base for a Middle Eastern defence or police force. It has air bases which enable present-day transport aircraft to reach the Canal Zone in an hour, Cairo in less than two hours, and Baghdad in less than three. It has a port at Haifa capable of great development, and it has oil supplies in its immediate vicinity . . . ”

In short, the Labour Government and its advisers are willing to take troops out of Egypt because they believe they will be better placed elsewhere for the defence of the Middle East. Imperial aims have not been dropped, but merely modified. 

The Labour Party is not a Socialist party and was not elected with a mandate for Socialism. It must therefore of necessity administer affairs, whether domestic or foreign, within the framework of capitalism. In its domestic affairs it has already amply demonstrated to the capitalist class that, fundamentally, they have nothing to fear from its administration. In foreign affairs its policy has sometimes even dismayed some of its own members and, on the other hand, has met with warm approval from the Conservative Party. On the Egyptian issue both Parties are concerned with one aim—how best to preserve the security of communications in the Middle East. The Labour Party, no less than the Conservatives, has sought to safeguard the interests of British Capitalism.

Stan Hampson

The Labour Party and the Suez Canal (1957)

From the January 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

In view of the attitude taken up by the Labour Party in the Suez dispute it is worthwhile casting the mind back to the attitude of Labour Governments in 1924 and 1929 on this matter. 

The Labour Magazine for August, 1929, under the heading “Labour and Egypt,” contains the following quotation from a dispatch sent by Ramsay McDonald in 1924, as Labour Foreign Secretary:

 “No British Government in the light of these experiences (meaning the war) can divest itself wholly even in favour of an ally, of its interest in guarding such a vital link in British negotiations (meaning, of course, the Suez Canal). Such a security must be a feature of any agreement come to between the two Governments, and I see no reason why accommodation is impossible, given goodwill. The effective co-operation of Great Britain and Egypt in protecting these negotiations, might, in my view, have been ensured by a treaty of close alliance. The presence of a British force in Egypt provided for by such a treaty, freely entered into by both parties on an equal footing, would in no way be incompatible with Egyptian independence. Whilst it would be an indication of the special close and intimate relations between the two countries, and their determination to co-operate in a matter of vital concern to both. It is not the wish of His Majesty’s Government that the force should in any way interfere with the functions of the Egyptian Government or encroach upon Egyptian sovereignty, and I emphatically said so.” (Pages 176-177.)

It will be noticed that this outlook is much the same as that put forward by the present Tory Government. However, negotiations fell through but the problem came up again during Labour’s 1929-1930 period of office. The Labour Magazine for September, 1929, contains the proposals made to Egypt by Henderson, the Labour Foreign Minister. Here is an extract from these proposals:

  “An undertaking on the part of Egypt that if she requires military instructors these shall be British; when the British military forces now in Egypt are removed and certain British forces are permitted by Egypt to be maintained on Egyptian territory in the vicinity of the Suez Canal for the protection of that waterway, the presence of these forces is not to prejudice in any way the sovereign rights of Egypt; an undertaking that the Egyptian Government will, as a rule, when engaging the services of foreign officials, engage British subjects” (page 211)

The summary of the proposals concludes with the following:

 “modification of any treaty based on the proposals to be admissible only after the treaty has been in force for a period of 25 years.”

The article adds that Mr. Henderson said that these proposals are “the extreme limit to which the Government is prepared to go.”

Thus the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929 wanted British forces to remain on Egyptian territory to safeguard the Suez Canal, and the 1929 treaty was to secure that this was so for the following 25 years—and it also included only British military instructors and British officials! What are the “sovereign rights” of a country in the eyes of Imperialists?

The November, 1929 issue of the Labour Magazine had an article on “The Labour Government’s offer to Egypt” containing a typical piece of Imperialist hypocrisy:

  “Later, in the detailed working out of the proposals, we find that, while the occupation of Egypt is to end, the occupation of the banks of the Suez Canal is to continue. The Canal is indisputably Egyptian territory In fact, however, Egypt sees little, and thinks, less of it The Canal is in Egypt, but not of Egypt. The Egyptian life in the main goes on unheeding of the vast international traffic that traverses the waterway from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. The grip of a country’s capital by foreign troops is one thing; the policing of a vastly important international highway is quite another. The former makes a mockery of national independence; the other—except on doctrinaire grounds—has but little relevancy to the question of national independence” (pages 303-304).

You see it all depends upon whether you look at the question from the point of view of Egyptian nationalism or British Imperialism. The Egyptians contend that as the canal is in Egypt it is in Egypt and consequently they have been trying to kick the British out since 1880. We have been taught that the Thames is an International highway, but if the Egyptians suggested sending a force here to protect it we very much doubt if the Labour Party would argue that the Thames is in England but not of England.

Finally, puzzle; find the difference between the outlook of the Labour and the Tory parties on the Suez Canal question; or, alternatively, which is the greatest humbug.

Gilmac.

Editorial: The Game of Hell. (1912)

Editorial from the February 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The fall of the Caillaux Ministry through the disclosures of the Morocco scandal is but another lesson in the sordid nature of our masters’ diplomacy. Here in England the same rotten mess is being made, and even the “Daily News,” Liberal though it is, calls for the resignation of Sir Edward Grey. What childish innocence! Just as if one man, and not the whole Liberal party, is to blame. Just as if every Liberal Minister, from the days of Palmerston’s intrigues with Russia, has not been the same. From the Crimea War to Majuba Hill the same old game was played.

Behind it all lurk the figures of the financial kings of England (or of capitalism), the men who come to the rescue of Governments with their money bags, the men who supply the party funds. Mr. Rothschild loaned Gladstone’s Government, millions at 15 per cent. interest to finance the Suez Canal and other Egyptian ventures ; he thereupon was made Lord Rothschild and Gladstone made war upon a people “rightly struggling to be free,” because they didn’t pay the interest quickly enough.

Russia has been the scene of greater wholesale murder for the past century than perhaps any other European country. That does not prevent our Liberal Government from making secret alliances, and welcoming the bloody Czar of Russia. Now a so-called return Parliamentary visit is being made to Russia, but the swindle is already seen. For instead of a purely Parliamentary deputation, there are representatives of all the great financial interests likely to be concerned in the promoting and building of a trans-Persian railway. Behind all the treaties —"to promote better relations" — there is merely the profit grinding commercialism of the Liberal and Tory capitalist.

As we prophesied in our December issue, Persia is to be the ”happy hunting ground” of English and Russian capitalists, and every obstacle to its annexation is cast aside—hence Mr. Shuster's dismissal. The speedy influx of capital in search of plunder recalls the building of the Cape to Cairo Railway that followed the arrival of Rhodes and his fellow buccaneers in South Africa.

Spoiling Egyptians: British Capitalism and Egyptian Nationalism. (1929)

Book Review from the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

British Imperialism in Egypt. By Elinor Burns.
 No. 5, Colonial Series. Published by the Labour Research Department. 72 pp. Price 6d.

This book is a very succinct and useful account of British control in Egypt from about 1850 to the present day.

From 1517 to 1914, Egypt was nominally under Turkish rule, and was required to pay an annual tribute, fixed in 1873 at £675,000, but during the 19th century a new overlord entered Egypt—the foreign financier—who demanded tribute on an immensely larger and ever-increasing scale.

Foreign capital was given its first opportunity by the construction of the Suez Canal during the reign of the Khedive Ismail, who was the first Egyptian ruler to foresee prospects of wealth and power by developing the country’s resources on West European lines. The first twelve years of Ismail’s reign call to mind the famous tribute to the “ bourgeoisie ” in the Communist Manifesto for, during this period, the following, among many other works, were completed: The construction of the Suez Canal and 8,400 miles of irrigation canals; over 900 miles of railways and 5,000 miles of telegraph ; the building of 430 bridges and numerous houses in Cairo; the Alexandria harbour and the Suez Docks; the construction of roads, including a special road to the Pyramids; and the completion of 15 lighthouses and 64 sugar mills. Irrigation increased the area of arable land from four million to nearly five-and-a-half million acres. Most of these works were carried out by British capitalists who lent the money at immense interest and obtained enormous profits on their contracts. In a short space of time these capitalists were owed by the Egyptian State more than a half of the money lent, and the bulk of revenue was required for debt redemption. More and more loans were contracted to pay off other loans, and the finances of the country became in such a hopeless condition that excuse was afforded for the British Government to “step in” in the interest of its “nationals”—the bondholders and financiers. The Khedive in 1875 was compelled by the creditors to sell his shares in the Suez Canal to the British Government for £4,000,000, and a financial mission was sent to Egypt “to assist in remedying the confusion.’’ Following this decision, Goschen, the representative of the bondholders, and the financial mission, forced upon the Khedive a scheme which included the appointment of two Controllers-General (one British, one French), and the consolidation of the debt at 7 per cent. interest (except on the loans of Goschen’s firm on which the old rates of 10 and 12 per cent. were to be paid!) Ruthless pressure was put upon the peasants to keep the State finances solvent. Crops were forestalled, and customs dues and railway rates were increased. Despite the occurrence of a cattle plague and a failure of crops, which led to a holocaust of deaths from starvation and disease, the British Government would not allow even postponement of interest payments. Repercussions followed elsewhere; salaries of soldiers and Civil Servants were unpaid and their numbers seriously reduced. The Egyptian Finance Minister who protested against foreign control, was “put out of the way.” At last, in 1879, a revolt in the Army and widespread discontent, compelled the Khedive to dismiss the foreign ministers and to institute, through an elected assembly of Sheiks and others, a native government. This gave birth to a National Party, whose slogan was “Egypt for the Egyptians.”

However, High Finance was not prepared to take this blow “lying down.” The British Government induced the Sultan of Turkey to depose the Khedive Ismail and to appoint Tewfik, a tool of the foreign interests, as his successor. A few weeks later the foreign Controllers General were re-installed in office, and agitation for Egyptian Independence received a further stimulus.

The Army, now the only native institution within the State machine, was the leading force in this movement, and an officer named Arabi, a former “ranker” of peasant origin, became its storm centre. The movement received support also from |he landlords, who objected to foreign exploitation of Egypt’s new resources, and the peasants, who were being bled white by taxes for debt service. A programme was drawn up, which included the dismissal of all ministers, the granting of a constitution, and an increase in the strength of the Army. To stifle the agitation, the Khedive ordered Arabi and his regiment to the provinces, but Arabi refused to go, and instead marched his troops to the Palace and compelled the Khedive to appoint a new Anti-Imperialist Ministry.

Shortly after the events recorded above a massacre of Christians by a hired band of Bedouins took place at Alexandria. Whether the massacre was instigated by the British or the Turks is obscure, but the effect was harmful from a British point of view, for the European residents demanded the recognition of Arabi and the setting up of a joint conference of the six Powers having interests in Egypt—France, England, Italy, Germany, Austria and Russia.

The conference met at Constantinople in June, 1882, and a protocol was signed on behalf of the respective governments renouncing exclusive territorial and commercial privileges, and agreeing that none of the Powers should take isolated action in Egypt except in case of special emergency. As exclusive British control was impossible under this arrangement, it was imperative that a “special emergency," should arise and a pretext was soon found to justify a British occupation of Egypt. The repairing of some forts at Alexandria by the Egyptians was seized upon by the British Government as an excuse to bombard Alexandria by warships on July 11th, 1882, troops were landed to “restore order" on the Nile, and Arabi and his followers, who showed resistance, were finally routed at Tel-el-Kebir. Thus the British occupation became an accomplished fact, and the other Powers were not at the time in a position to assert their own “rights" under the protocol. The dual control was abolished, and the Egyptian constitution and Assembly were replaced by councils whose powers were merely advisory. Egypt for the next 25 years was treated to the “humane" administration of the British Consul-General, Sir Evelyn Baring, a London financier, who was afterwards made Lord Cromer for “services rendered."

The Baring regime introduced a new era of economic development. It was seen that the continued impoverishment of the peasants would lead to loss of revenue through land going out of cultivation. Accordingly the production of cotton on a greater scale for export was encouraged. This, in turn, created a demand for products of British heavy industry, for vast irrigation works and light railways, and, strangely enough, for foodstuffs, which were not now a paying proposition for the Egyptian peasant. In 1907 the exports of cotton were worth £30,000,000 as against £8,000,000 in 1892; and in 1908 foodstuffs to the value of £5,000,000 were imported, though a few years previously Egypt was a self-supporting country. It would be impossible in this article to trace the rapid industrialisation of Egypt to the present day, but some idea may be obtained from the estimate of the amount of British capital invested in Egypt, which is stated in this book to be about £200,000,000, on which the sum taken by British capitalists in interest and profits is given as £20,000,000.

Under the Baring administration the “key” positions in the Civil Service, Local Administration and the Army were held by Britishers, but as time went on it was found necessary to placate the class of rising Egyptian capitalists and large landowners which capitalist development had brought into being, and concessions had to be made continually to these sections. Saad Zaghlul Pasha, for example, was made Minister of Public Instruction in 1906. Nevertheless, control of the Egyptian State machine has never been relaxed by the British capitalist interests, and a persistent struggle between the Egyptian native capitalists and the British capitalists has been going on up to the present day. The political history of Egypt since 1906 has been a record of demonstrations, strikes, assassinations, riots and armed revolts on the one hand and of bloody repression, judicial atrocities, bombings, imprisonments, martial law, deportations; interspersed with attempts at compromise, on the other. Prior to the European War, Mustapha Kernel had been largely instrumental in organising the students, and by street demonstrations and the publication of newspapers, which had large circulations, the question of Egyptian "independence” was kept to the fore. By 1914 the movement had become so menacing that in November of that year Egypt was put under martial law. A rigorous press censorship was instituted; in December a British Protectorate was declared, and the pro-Turkish Khedive Abbas was deposed in favour of Hussein, who was given the title of Sultan. Although the British Government declared publicly that Egyptians would not be required for war service, yet within a year tens of thousands of peasants and workers were “rounded up" and compelled to join the Labour Corps and the Camel Transport Corps. The total number computed to have been enlisted in this manner in the various forces was about 1,000,000. Such measures as these induced violent hatred of British rule and popular support of the Nationalist movement. Further, the hypocritical talk in Allied journals about “self-determination” and the rights of “small nationalities” was seized upon by the Nationalists as imflammable propaganda and in order to harass the Government. Soon after the Armistice an Egyptian delegation (Wafd) was formed under Zaghlul Pasha to proceed to London in order to discuss the question of Egyptian “independence” with the British Government, but passports were refused and Zaghlul and three members of the Wafd were subsequently arrested and deported to Malta on March 8th, 1919. Open revolt followed this act, but was crushed with barbarous severity by brand, bomb and bullet. Attempts to break up the Wafd organisation failed, and as the country continued to be in a state of unrest and turmoil, the British Government at last conceded a constitution to the Egyptians. The first elections (January, 1924) gave an overwhelming majority to the Zaghlulists.

In recent years the dominating question at issue between the Egyptian native capitalists and the British Government is the control of the Sudan. This huge area of over a million square miles lying south of Egypt, bordering Uganda on the south and Abyssinia on the east, was annexed by the British Government in 1898. Since that date a similar story of capitalistic penetration to that of Egypt has to be recorded. Now Egypt is entirely dependent upon the Nile, and the Sudan controls the Upper Nile. A hostile power in the Sudan, therefore, could easily render Egypt impotent by changing the course of the Nile. Further, the sheep and cattle of the Sudan supply Egypt with much of its food, and the development of cotton production must inevitably react on Egyptian conditions. In addition, future Egyptian industrial progress is dependent upon electricity supplied from Sudanese water power, for Egypt has no coal, and poor oil resources. It will be seen, therefore, that, economically, Egypt and the Sudan are inseparable, and Egyptian capitalist interests are endangered by British control of the Sudan. But the Sudan is of equal importance to British capitalist interests apart from internal economic exploitation, for its coastline along the Red Sea forms an important link in Empire communication.

When Zaghlul took office in 1924 he thought that the British Labour Government, then in office, would help the movement for Egyptian Independence, but he was soon to learn that lip opposition to imperialist principles did not imply action along those lines. MacDonald, in fact, told the British High Commissioner in Egypt in a despatch that they (the British Government) “regard their responsibilities as a trust for the Sudan people; there can be no question of their abandoning the Sudan until their work is done”; and in the interview with Zaghlul in London he was very sympathetic with the “sufferings ” of the holders of the Turkish Government’s bonds, payment on which had been stopped since the War by the Turkish Government. The first British Labour Government also showed its “Labour” principles by condoning domestic slavery in the Sudan. So much for Labour professions!

But if the British Labour Government proved an “eye-opener” to the Egyptian Nationalists, the actions of the latter when in power proved their utter worthlessness so far as the peasants and workers in Egypt were concerned. The whole of the legislation put through by the Zaghlul ministry was favourable to the Egyptian capitalists, and one of its first actions was the replacement of the Militant Trade Unions, which had grown up after the 1919 rising, by organisations controlled by the Wafd, whose members held all the important positions. Strikes were frequent, but these were suppressed by the usual capitalist methods of imprisonment and deportation. It is deserving of notice that at the present time more than one-half of the persons engaged in agriculture are wage workers, and tobacco, silk, railway, constructional and transport workers are organised in Trade Unions.

Recent events in Egypt will doubtless be familiar to our readers. The struggle between the native and British capitalist interests becomes ever more acute. “Crisis” has succeeded “crisis,” and on July 19th, 1928, the Egyptian Parliament was suspended for three years and a complete dictatorship has been established, which has prohibited meetings of the Wafd, and exercises a rigid censorship over their press.

Apart from some little glorification of  Communist “leaders," the book is free from the expression of personal opinions. There is much statistical data, and the diction is clear and devoid of literary “frillings.” It concludes with the following passage:—

  It is evident that no solution of the Egyptian problem has been reached. For imperialism there can be no solution, because the satisfaction of its own needs inevitably fosters the growth of native capitalism, brings into being the working class, robs the Egyptian peasantry of the very means of existence, and thus strengthens the forces which are drawn into the anti-imperialist struggle.

If, after their previous experiences, the Egyptian workers and peasants are again drawn into this struggle between two sections of their exploiters, they will have themselves to blame, and it should be clear that the workers here have nothing to gain by lending their support to capitalist national movements in any land.

W. J.

An Earlier Bombardment of Egypt (1956)

From the December 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Egypt was under Arab and Turkish control for twelve hundred years up to 1873, when it secured independence from Turkey, but was still under British and French financial control. The Suez Canal, built by de Lesseps, was opened in 1869. In 1875 the British Government bought the Khedive's (Viceroy of Egypt) shares in the canal in order to safeguard the route to India. It was the beginning of the partition of Africa amongst the European powers, chief of whom were Britain, France and Germany.

Of this partition, Major-General Fuller has this to say in his book War and Western Civilisation:

  “From 1870 onwards a veritable crusade was carried out by European nations in the name of Gold, every banker, statesman and merchant swearing on his cheque book for his personal profit to ‘civilize’ such portions of the world as could not defend themselves against the white man's rifles and cannon; for ‘progress’ to these people was synonymous with ‘conquest’ Having since 1815 freed themselves from autocratic government, their one intention was to force the absolutism they had rejected down the throats of all peoples who happened to be any colour except white. As regards aggression, the years 1870-98 are only equalled by the age of Genghis Khan. Between 1870 and 1900 Great Britain acquired 4,754,000 square miles of territory, adding to her population 88,000,000 people: between 1884 and 1900 France acquired 3,583,580 square miles and 36,553,000 people; and in these same years Germany, a bad last, gained 1,026,220 square miles and 16,687,100 people.” (Pages 133-134.)

In 1882, under the influence of this “crusading” spirit, an Anglo-French squadron of ships was lying off Alexandria with steam always up. In Egypt a nationalist movement of revolt against European influence was being worked up by Arabi Pasha (an Egyptian officer) after the fashion of Nasser. Admiral Seymour, the commander of the fleet, learnt that the forts opposite them were being covertly strengthened and extensively armed. In the meantime rioting broke out in Alexandria and Europeans were attacked.

The Graphic newspaper for July 24th, 1882, published a supplement covering the Egyptian crisis. Of the Suez Canal it made the following remarks:

  “The safety of the Suez Canal was another source of anxiety. Alarming reports were circulated of 5,000 disaffected soldiers being on the watch, of Bedouins haunting the banks, and of explosives being stored in lsmailia. Many of the officials left, and the Egyptian Ministry were asked by M. de Lesseps to secure the protection of the traffic. Ragheb returned a vague reply, hardly calculated to allay the anxiety, which was heightened by the rumour that Arabi intended to blow up the Canal on the first sign of British hostile intentions.”

How familiar it all seems! British and foreign consuls warned their nationals to leave the country, and the authorities, one by one, removed their official property and staffs aboard ship. On the morning after the removal was completed Admiral Seymour sent an ultimatum to the Egyptian Ministry giving them twenty-four hours to surrender the forts for disarmament, under penalty of bombardment. Now let us quote the Graphic’s account of what happened:

  "The day passed without sign of submission, much to the evident satisfaction of the British officers and crews, and by 4 a.m. on the 11th inst., the order was given to prepare for action. Whilst the vessels took up their positions the men watched eagerly for signs of life in the forts, as they feared that the Egyptians would bolt without fighting, and on seeing the soldiers grouped in the defences,' a smile of grim satisfaction pervaded all faces.’ Hopes of the encounter were, however, damped by the appearance of the Felicon, bearing some Turkish officers, who announced that they had been rowing about all night to find the Admiral. They brought a Ministerial letter offering to dismount the Egyptian guns, but Admiral Seymour replied that the time for negotiations had passed, and gave the order to commence.”

The forts were subjected to an intense bombardment and in a few hours reduced to shapeless masses. A panic was produced in Alexandria, and the Egyptian army retreated after looting the shops.

The bombardment of Alexandria was followed by the subjugation of Egypt and the Sudan and the vision of territorial control right down to the Cape.

Gilmac.