383.0063/22: Telegram
The Minister in Egypt ( Kirk ) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 25—9:15 a.m.]
323. My 194, December [April] 5, 3 p.m.65 As reported in Legation’s despatch no. 2332 [2322] of January 30, 1941,65 a series of conferences was instituted last October between the Ministry for Education and certain foreign educational groups, including the American University and the American Mission, regarding certain aspects of instruction in foreign educational institutions. According to American participants in the conferences, agreement was reached on a number of points including Government inspection and examinations and special studies for Egyptian nationals. Although misgivings developed at times during the conferences regarding an [Page 322] apparent disposition of the Government to interfere unduly with foreign schools the only points on which the views of the Egyptian and foreign representatives were so divergent as to necessitate the submission of minority reports were in respect of personnel and religious instruction.
The meetings terminated on March 11 with a general conference at which a report was submitted setting forth the views of the Government as constituting the findings of the various committees and ignoring the dissenting views of the foreign representatives. This brought forth a joint note signed by 9 of the 11 foreign institutions represented, including the afore-mentioned American organizations, to the Minister of Education66 on March 14th protesting particularly against the following recommendation of the committee: “No religion other than their own shall be taught to students, not even with the formal consent of their parents; this principle is of public order.”
However despite this protest articles obviously originating from Government sources appeared in the press indicating that complete agreement had been reached between the Government and foreign school representatives. The schools attempted to counteract these reports by sending letters of denial to the press but Dr. Watson67 states that the Arabic press refused to publish these letters.
Since the representatives of the various foreign schools felt that the foregoing developments indicated an attitude which deliberately ignored the considerations set forth by them they prepared a further protest challenging the basic status of the conferences, maintaining that the meetings had been for conferential purposes only, that the delegates of the foreign schools had no representative status and claiming unimpaired their rights under the Montreux Convention.68 Furthermore the foreign schools professed to see their fears further justified when on March 21 announcement was made in the press of certain regulations being prepared by the Ministry of Education to amend Law 40 of 1934 governing private schools. The representatives of American schools profess to find these regulations even more objectionable than the unfavorable report of the general committee.
Although it is probable that certain of the objections which the representatives of American educational institutions entertain in respect of the proposed draft amendments might be difficult to support it would nevertheless appear that some of the amendments as drafted might be construed as infringing certain of the rights guaranteed American schools under the Montreux Convention. Following conferences between the Legation and the heads of the leading American [Page 323] institutions it is therefore recommended that I be authorized at this time to invite the attention of the Prime Minister to the fears of the American institutions in this respect and express the hope that in any legislation bearing on foreign schools due regard will be taken of the rights guaranteed American institutions under the Montreux Convention freely to carry on their activities, at least during the period of transition provided in the Convention.
The British Embassy was also approached by British educational institutions in this matter and requested instructions from the Foreign Office in London. It is understood that the Embassy has now received a reply directing it to protest against the proposed legislation on the ground in so far as curriculum and personnel are concerned that it would contravene the guarantees given at Montreux and in so far as the religious issue is concerned to maintain that there is no reasonable basis for the proposed restrictions but in so doing to refrain from placing such objections on legal grounds or citing Montreux.