Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1929, Volume II

883.05/290: Telegram

The Minister in Egypt (Gunther) to the Secretary of State

[Paraphrase]

Cairo, January 14, 1929—9 a.m.
[Received January 14—7:37 a.m.]

1. Your 3, January 9, 11 a.m. There have already been sent to the Department the views of … on the Egyptian note of December 25, 1927,⁸ and the replies, or references thereto, of Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, and Greece to the Egyptian note of October 28, 1928, with my comments.⁹ The answers of the Portuguese and Spanish Ministers likewise closely follow the lines of the French Minister’s response. The only Minister other than myself who has made no reply yet is the Swedish Minister, who informs me that his note will follow the same general lines. The British alone have expressed views which are favorable to the holding of an international conference to consider Egypt’s preliminary proposals, and I am given to understand that the British Government is, in principle, really opposed to holding a conference until the preliminary negotiations are further advanced.

A commission has been formed by the Egyptian Government to study these representations, but little progress is being made, I understand, due partly to the continuing domestic conflict between two political groups, backing the King and the Prime Minister, respectively.

Having these considerations in mind, may I respectfully submit the suggestions which follow:

(1) The American reply should express the friendly interest which the United States Government will have in the plans it understands are to be submitted later by the Egyptian Government to revise the capitulatory regime and should state something to the effect that the possible holding eventually of an international conference regarding this subject, in case Egypt desires it, will be sympathetically considered. I am informed by my Italian colleague that categorical instructions have been sent him and the French Minister as well to decline a conference to consider the specific proposals numbered in the Egyptian note of December 25, 1927.

(2) The American reply to these specific proposals should:

(a) Favor, in principle, proposal 1, providing that no limitation is placed on the right of objection of the powers;

(b) Agree, in principle, to proposal 2, briefly alluding, as it may seem desirable, to the apparently needed creation or the extension of the parquet judicial police, of the penitentiary system, and of the revision of codes of criminal law and procedure. These safeguards are not, from a practical standpoint, as important in Egypt to American as to other foreign interests;

(c) Agree to proposal 3, the Legation knowing of no dissenting opinion;

(d) Express the hope as to proposal 4 that the additional chamber, apparently much needed, will be composed not of three but of five judges, this being the generally held view here;

(e) View with sympathy the principle which motivates principle 5, but object to the requirement that an Egyptian must hold one office. Thus the way would be left open for a later refusal. Serious doubt appears to exist regarding the ability of Egyptians to preside over the chambers;

(f) Reserve, for the present, an expression of opinion regarding proposal 6, as it is now drafted, since this seems to be the easiest way to avoid offending Egyptian susceptibilities, and it should fully meet the present situation.

(3) In case it should be deemed appropriate to refer further to proposal 4, a brief statement might be added to set forth the American position, similar to the instruction No. 306, January 22, 1927,¹¹ respecting the departure from the principle of equal representation, since, as the Department knows, exceptions to this were never filed formally with the Egyptian Government, owing to the last paragraph of the instruction cited. A favorable opportunity would appear to exist for these exceptions to be made known, in view of the attitude of the principal continental powers, but, as to the remainder of the American reply, I am of the opinion that the less definite it is, the better. Before going into further detail regarding the other five proposals, it would be advantageous to examine the Egyptian Government’s response to the replies hitherto made by my colleagues.

I should appreciate telegraphic instructions, if possible, as the mail service at present requires about a month.

Gunther

8. ibid., p. 747.
9. See despatches No. 83, November 22, 1928; No. 89, December 1, 1928; No. 90, December 7, 1928; and telegram No. 47, November 6, 1928, from the Minister in Egypt, ibid., pp. 769, 770, 772, 768, respectively.
11. Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. ii, p. 560.