883.00/218
Senator Owen to the Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Secretary: The question has arisen as to the interpretation of the recognition by the United States of the British protectorate over Egypt. This recognition was in the following language:
[Here follows communication to the British Special High Commissioner quoted in despatch No. 457, April 26, from the Agent and Consul General at Cairo, printed on page 203.]
When the protectorate over Egypt was proclaimed by Great Britain, King George sent a telegram to the Sultan of Egypt, which was published in the London Times of December 21, 1914. This telegram was as follows:
“On the occasion when Your Highness enters upon your high office, I desire to convey to Your Highness the expression of my most sincere friendship and the assurance of my unfailing support in safeguarding the integrity of Egypt and in securing her future well-being and prosperity.
“Your highness has been called upon to undertake the responsibility of your high office at a grave crisis in the national life of Egypt, and I feel convinced that you will be able, with the cooperation of your ministers and the protection of Great Britain, to successfully overcome all the influences which are seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt and the wealth, liberty and happiness of the people.
(Signed) George R. and I.”
To this the Sultan of Egypt replied:
“I present to Your Majesty the expression of my deepest gratitude for the feelings of friendship with which you see fit to honor me, and for the assurance of your valuable support in safeguarding the integrity and independence of Egypt. …”6
It appears, therefore, that when this protectorate was proclaimed it was announced as merely a measure to preserve the integrity and independence of Egypt.
A protectorate, in international law, certainly does not mean sovereignty, and the assumption of sovereignty under the guise of a protectorate would be unwarranted and contrary to international law.
On September 2 last, the British Embassy at Washington issued a public statement, among other things saying: “The British Government has carefully avoided destroying Egyptian sovereignty.”
Field Marshal Allenby, British High Commissioner in Egypt, however, the other day issued a proclamation stating that Great Britain would accord certain autonomy to Egypt. This is apparently an assumption of sovereignty, for only the sovereign can grant autonomy.
As I construe the recognition by the United States of the British protectorate over Egypt it is qualified and subject to reservation for further discussion, and in according this recognition I do not understand that the United States intended to deprive the people of Egypt of any of their rights of sovereignty or independence, but the protectorate so recognized was merely a measure for preserving the integrity and independence of Egypt until the same could be guaranteed by a league of nations or an agreement among the powers.
Moreover Section [Article] 148 of the treaty contemplates negotiation between Great Britain and the other Governments with regard to the Egyptian matter which I take it was by necessary interpretation to deal with the question of the rights of the Egyptian people under the conditions implied by the above quotations and by the express terms of your letter of November 5, 1918,7 stating the conditions upon which the United States and the entente allies would agree to the armistice.
As this matter comes before the United States Senate in an official way in connection with the ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, which has in it a clause recognizing the British protectorate over Egypt, I desire to be entirely accurate as to the meaning of this protectorate.
Will you kindly let me know, therefore, whether the interpretation I have given above is correct, i.e., that the United States has never recognized any sovereignty in Great Britain over Egypt and did not intend, by the qualified recognition of the protectorate, to transfer from the Egyptian people any of their rights of sovereignty and independence?
I will appreciate an early reply.
Yours sincerely,
- Omission indicated in Senator Owen’s letter.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1918, Supplement 1, vol. i, p. 468.↩