1 L.D X. o ly^i; 
 
 EMPIRE-MINDED NATIONS 
 
 "Let Us Stop Supporting 
 
 Colonial Slavery" ^^b^HY^^^ 
 
 LIBRAR' 
 
 Remarks of \<f^/4, 
 
 Hon. George W. MalOT^^ 
 
 of Nevada 
 in the 
 
 Senate of the United States 
 October 18 and 20, 1951 
 
 Not printed 
 at Government 
 expense 
 
 United States Government Printing Office, Washington : 1951 
 S76510— 41024 
 
" SUBJECT INDEX 
 
 Page 
 
 America's foreign policy 14 
 
 Arabia oil 4 
 
 America's part in financing colonization 14 
 
 American policies for America 15 
 
 American soldiers to hold status quo, President says 3 
 
 Atom bomb and submarine advent 14 
 
 Backward nations not so backward 14 
 
 Billions to support colonial slavery 7 
 
 Britain's domination of oil-producing areas 14 
 
 British-four-nation control 5 
 
 British in Suez Canal zone area 5, 12, 14 
 
 British unable to maintain order in Par East 14 
 
 Casualties in Korea 4 
 
 Churchill's statement 4 
 
 Colonialism is outdated 4 
 
 Colonial people on the move 13 
 
 Egyptian premier's statement 6, 8 
 
 English must have support of America ' 4 
 
 Guaranteeing integrity of colonial slavery system 3 
 
 Iran oil 4 
 
 Israel support by America 5 
 
 Lord Palmerston's statement 4 
 
 Making enemies of natural friends 6 
 
 Malone's opposition to North Atlantic Pact 5 
 
 Malone's personal knowledge of colonial slave nations 7 
 
 Malone's predictions came true 5 
 
 Moslem alienation 6 
 
 New York Times on British in Egypt 1 13 
 
 No foot soldiers outside America 4 
 
 No permanent friendships or enmities : 4 
 
 North Atlantic Pact 3 
 
 Only two major nations 7 
 
 Sokolsky on colonization of Asia and Africa 14 
 
 State Department intrudes us into Egypt 4 
 
 Status quo of world impossible to keep 7, 14 
 
 Sudan country 3 
 
 Suez Canal and the British 5 
 
 Von Weigand's article on Suez Canal 5 
 
 Water, lifeblood of Egypt 4 
 
 976510—41024 (2) 
 
Empire-Sfiinded Nations 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 OF 
 
 HOiN. GEOHGEW. lALONE 
 
 OF NEVADA 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 October 18 and October 20, 1951 
 
 The .Senate resumed the consideration 
 of the bill (H. R. 5684) maldng appro- 
 priations for mutual security for the fis- 
 cal year ending June 30, 1952, and for 
 other purposes. 
 
 GIFT-LOANS FINANCED BY AMERICAN TAXPAYEES 
 SUPPORTING COLONIAL SLAVERY SYSTEMS 
 
 Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, the bill 
 under consideration appropriates $7,- 
 208,401,400, to be siven to foreign nations 
 in the form of gifts, loans, or otherwise, 
 without any speciflc conditions attached 
 to such gifts. 
 
 ATLANTIC PACT DEFENDS COLONIAL POSSESSIONS 
 
 I invite attention to the statement 
 made by the junior Senator from Ne- 
 vada in March 1949, during the debate 
 on the first extension of the Marshall 
 plan, EGA. Under the heading "North 
 Atlantic Pact," I stated: 
 
 I am coming back to the question in an- 
 swer to the Senator from Massachusetts 
 [Mr. Lodge]. All of the information on the 
 real meaning of the North Atlantic Pact is 
 that, in effect, we will be guaranteeing the 
 protection and status quo of all the colonial 
 possessions of the empire-minded nations of 
 Europe. Further, we will have relinquished 
 our right to go to war only when our peace 
 and safety is threatened, and must go when 
 the peace and safety of any of the European, 
 nations signatory to the pact is threatened. 
 
 On July 12, 1949, the junior Senator 
 from Nevada said : 
 
 ; Mr. President, the North Atlantic Pact, 
 ; simply and without question, guarantees the 
 ' integrity of the colonial systems throughout 
 Asia and Africa. 
 
 * • * * » 
 
 AMERICAN SOLDIERS KEEP PEACE OF WORLD 
 
 PRESIDENT SAYS 
 
 Mr. President, it will be remembered 
 that the President of the United States 
 recently reiterated what he has stated 
 from time to time: we would find Ameri- 
 can soldiers wherever trouble broke out 
 throughout the world. 
 
 S76510— 41024. ( 
 
 Secretary Acheson has stated that 
 Indochina is in the same category as 
 Korea. We take it for granted that that 
 is the foreign policy of the Administra- 
 tion, to hold the status quo throughout 
 the world; wherever there was colonial 
 slavery, then that is what it will continue 
 to be. We will join the empire-minded 
 nations in holding the status quo. 
 
 Mr. President, the Atlantic Pact fol- 
 lowed the promotion of "free" trade and 
 the removal of the metal base from our 
 money. The latter was done so that the 
 Administration could print all the money 
 it vj-anted to give to foreign nations. In- 
 cidentally, printing press money has 
 brought on the inflation about which the 
 administration is no\/ complaining. 
 * * * # ♦ 
 
 On July 12, 1949, on the Senate floor, 
 I referred to what I called the "presently 
 known five-part administration pro- 
 gram." 
 
 The discussion on that date reads in 
 part: 
 
 The long-range five-part program has been 
 presented to the Congress and to the Senate 
 by the President of the United States to cor- 
 rect the European problems, each as an 
 emergency in its own right; however, taken 
 together they include and interlock the na- 
 tional and international economy. The five- 
 part program includes — 
 
 Mr. President, this was on July 12, 
 1949, more than 2 years ago. Contin- 
 uing — 
 
 First. The North Atlantic Pact, which was 
 not the first proposal made, but which is be- 
 fore us today. It would have the effect of: 
 
 A. Guaranteeing the integrity of the colo- 
 nial system of all Asia, Africa, and Surope, 
 thus extending the political and economic 
 control of Prance's Indochina, New Cale- 
 donia, French West Africa, and Morocco; 
 England's Singapore and Malayan States, 
 East Africa and the Sudan country. South 
 Africa, North Ireland, and many other areap; 
 the Netherlands, Indonesia, and Belgian 
 Congo in Africa — 
 
 • * * • • 
 
 Mr. President, I know the Sudan coun- 
 try, which is included in the announce- 
 ment of the Secretary of State. The 
 junior Senator from Nevada visited the 
 British Governor of the Sudan country 
 In 1948 when they were planting peanuts 
 there with our money. They were not 
 doing very well with it, either, I may say. 
 They lost most of it. The Sudan is a 
 part of Egypt. Without going into the 
 history of it— because I intend to use 
 
4 
 
 some material a little later In my ad- 
 dress which will review the history of the 
 Sudan — what the British were doing 
 with our money was increasing the pro- 
 duction of cotton and other agricultural 
 products and taking the water out of the 
 irue. 
 
 Water is the Uf eblood of Egypt. The 
 country which controls the upper Nile 
 and the Sudan and has the money — of 
 course, Britain had enough money, with 
 our appropriating money in amounts of 
 $7,000,003,000, $3,000,000,000, and $9.- 
 000,000,000 each year for ETurope — such 
 country can endanger, I say, the very life 
 of Egypt on the lower Nile. 
 
 « He « * * 
 
 SECRETART OF STATE INTRUtlES US INTO EGYPT 
 
 Mr. President, it is obvious that the 
 Secretary of State has intruded us into 
 the Egyptian affair without a thorough 
 understanding of the possible conse- 
 quences. 
 
 We have had a couple of these great 
 ambassadors in Iran, but about all they 
 have succeeded in doing is muddying 
 the water through threats, and Iran 
 is in a greater turmoil than ever before. 
 About all that was ever the matter in 
 Iran, as shown by the facts now becom- 
 ing known, was that since about 1890 
 England has taken about all the profit 
 from the production of oil there and left 
 very little for Iran. Even as late as 1948, 
 when I was in Iran and inspected the 
 operations at Abadan, including the oil 
 fields, the British were paying a royalty 
 of only 17 cents a barrel, whereas across 
 the line, in Arabia, our American com- 
 panies were paying royalties of 40, 50, 
 or 60 cents a barrel. In addition, Britain 
 was operating under some kind of a 
 treaty by which she was allowed to make 
 foreign investments out of the income 
 from the Iranian oil fields and to tax 
 the income before anything was left for 
 the Iranians. 
 
 About 250,000 or 300,000 of the Iran- 
 ians profited somewhat in terms of their 
 standard of living, but the other 17,- 
 000,000 Iranians were still living off of 
 dried dates and goats' milk, just as the 
 people of Iran have lived for 5,000 years. 
 Apparently those who now live in Iran 
 did not like that arrangement very much 
 and did not like to see all that wealth 
 leave tlieh- country. 
 
 AMERICAN SOLDTEHS HOLB STATTTS QTTO OF THE 
 WOBUJ — 160,000 DEAB, MAIMED, LOSi: 
 
 Mr. President, we have had the amaz- 
 ing statement of our President and our 
 
 976510—41024 
 
 Secretary of State to the effect that 
 when there is any disturbance or when 
 there are any outward evidences of dis- 
 satisfaction with the status quo at any 
 place within the entire world, our boys 
 will go there and will setile the mat- 
 ter. 
 
 In Korea we have the sad situation 
 of several thousand of our boys being 
 killed or wounded or lost each week, 
 without any emphasis being placed by 
 the administration on that loss. Ac- 
 tually, about 160,000 of our boys have 
 been lost, maimed, wounded, or frozen, 
 suffering from frozen feet or frozen arms, 
 or otherwise incapacitated, since the war 
 began in Korea — that police action 
 which our boys are not allowed to win 
 and which they dare not lose. 
 
 NO FOOT SOLDIERS OUTSIDE AMERICA 
 
 In the first place, we never should 
 have a foot soldier outside the United 
 States of America. We should, instead, 
 build up our Air Corps and our subma- 
 rine force to the point where we could, 
 for our own security and welfare, block- 
 ade or make untena.tale any area. We 
 should put the matter on that basis. 
 
 NO PEHMANENT FBIENDSHIPS OR ENMITIES 
 
 Mr. President, the policies of England 
 and other nations are based upon the 
 principle expressed by one of Britain's 
 gTcat Prime Ministers in 1853. Lord 
 Palmerston in 1858 said: 
 
 We hare no permanent friendships or en- 
 mities; we liave but permanent interests. 
 
 Mr. Chm-chill voiced that again in 
 1945. when Mr. Roosevelt said to him 
 that he thought Britain should abandon 
 Hoi^ Kong and thus save trouble in 
 that area. Churchill expressed the 
 same thought in these words: 
 
 I did not tiecome the King's First Mfnistesr 
 to liquidate the British Empire. 
 
 This virtually said that if the United 
 States does not want to support the 
 colonial slavery system, the United 
 States is no longer a friend of Britain's. 
 
 WHEN THEY- ARE IN WAR WE ARE IN WAR 
 
 Mr. President, we find ourselves tied 
 up in a treaty which says that we must 
 go to the aid of Britain or any of the 
 other North Atlantic Pact nations; in 
 other words, we are at war when they 
 are at war. In 1949, during the debate 
 on the North Atlantic Pact, I said that 
 they will get into a war by fighting to re- 
 tain their colonial possessions. 
 
 Mr. President, colonialism is out- 
 dated. With our maximum power, we 
 
5 
 
 could not sustain the colonial system, 
 even if v/e should want to do so. 
 
 At this time I wish to call attention 
 to a dispatch appearing in the New York 
 Journal American on yesterday, October 
 17, 1951, by Karl H. Von Wiegand. The 
 article is headlined as follows: 
 
 Karl H. Von Wiegand Cables British Unable 
 
 To Hold Suez Without United States 
 (By Karl H. Von Wiegand, dean of American 
 foreign correspondents) 
 
 In part, the article reads: 
 
 Britain cannot hold' her position on 
 Egyptian territory in the Suez Canal zone 
 without the active support of America. 
 
 Mr. President, I have just read the 
 statement by the Secretary of State. 
 Apparently England has the active sup- 
 port of the United States of America. 
 Let us see how this capable correspond- 
 ent feels about what the effect is going 
 to be. I continue: 
 
 If the United States supports Britain with 
 the utmost diplomatic pressure and threats 
 of military reinforcements or naval move- 
 ments in the eastern Mediterranean, it will 
 make the Arab States in the Near and Middle 
 East and in parts of North Africa bitterly 
 hostile to America in the event of war with 
 Soviet Russia. 
 
 * * * * 
 
 The impression also prevails that the 
 Pentagon in Washington would not look upon 
 any new commitments with favor. 
 
 audacious move 
 
 The action of Premier Mustapha El-Nahas 
 Pasha, whom I have known for 25 years, and 
 Foreign Minister Mohamed Salah El-Dine 
 Pasha was a bold and audacious move at a 
 time when Britain is experiencing one of her 
 weakest periods of recent years. 
 
 It is an intense nationalist move and Na- 
 has Pasha has all Egypt solidly behind him. 
 
 The demolition of a British barracks on 
 the banks of the Nile in Cairo, where two 
 Egyptian cabinet ministers with picks re- 
 moved the first stones and bricks, is eloquent 
 of public sentiment against the British and 
 very symbolic of the situation. 
 
 The British are embittered and bellicose 
 over Nahas Pasha's treacherous and illegal 
 blow, as they call his surprise move. 
 
 Their dictum is, "the British will stay In 
 the canal zone." 
 
 The Egyptians say, "the British will and 
 must go." 
 
 The British troops in the canal zone, 
 which is their Middle East base, cannot re- 
 main unless diplomatically and otherwise 
 backed up by the United States. 
 
 * « « « « 
 
 Mr. President, there are 40,000 British 
 troops in the Suez Canal zone. That is 
 the latest report. Ten thousand is the 
 
 976510—41024 
 
 limit under the treaty, but the British 
 themselves have violated the treaty. I 
 continue : 
 
 A suggestion that defense of the canal zone 
 be taken over by the Americans, French, 
 Turks, and British has received some atten- 
 tion but so far there is no enthusiasm for 
 that plan. 
 
 BRITISH-FOUR-NATION CONTROL 
 
 Mr. President, we on the Senate floor, 
 at least those of us who have been in 
 Egypt and England and these other 
 nations, must know that it was only a 
 subterfuge to cover up the control by 
 the British. It was to continue the con- 
 trol, net over t''\e Suez Canal, but over 
 the Sudan country, the upper Sudan, 
 which by all rightful conclusions would 
 have to belong to Egypt. That is what 
 that suggestion was for, and of course, 
 Mr. President, it would be very nice if 
 our people could ignore those things 
 and merely say, "Let us just hold the 
 world forever as it was in 1C45." I say, 
 Mr. President, even if it were a good idea, 
 we cannot do it, because there are not 
 enough of us; history will show that this 
 has been tried before. I continue with 
 the Wiegand article: 
 
 The British are hated and there is no warm 
 feeling for the Turks because of their cold 
 aloofness for years and the Turkish attitude 
 in the past toward the Moslem region since 
 the overthrow of the Caliphate by Ataturk. 
 
 COOL TOWARD UNITED STATES 
 
 There is far from cordiality to Americans 
 in the canal zone because of American sup- 
 port of Israel. 
 
 The present crisis in Egypt and on the Suez 
 Canal is the direct outcome of Britain's de- 
 feat in Persia, and that grew out of America's 
 United Nations war stalemate in Korea. 
 
 All three reveal to anyone who wants to 
 see objectively and realistically what a fail- 
 ure the United Nations has been and is. 
 
 Utterly incompetent diplomacy has allowed 
 the Near and Middle East to drift into be- 
 coming a dark, messy, oily political sea in 
 which Soviet Russia and communism can 
 fish with an invisible fishing pole, and with 
 lines, hooks, and bait that cannot be seen. 
 
 With the unfinished Korean war on Amer- 
 ica's hands, it would be common sense and 
 even wisdom if the White House, State De- 
 partment, and Congress would go slow and 
 consider most carefully the possible conse- 
 quences before they engage in new and costly 
 adventures in Egypt and the Middle East just 
 to help out Britain. 
 
 It is too late to do much for the British. 
 They have made too many blunders. 
 
 PREDICTIONS CAME TRUE 
 
 Mr. President, I have taken the floor 
 today to put before the Senate some of 
 the factual information which has come 
 
6 
 
 to light, supporting predictions made by 
 tlie junior Senator from Nevada 3 years 
 ago. 
 
 Mr. President, in that same speech, of 
 July 12, 1949, the junior Senator from 
 Nevada said, further: 
 
 The operation of the North Atlantic Pact 
 in relation to protecting the Integrity of the 
 colonial areas throughout Asia, Africa, and 
 all of Europe, was correctly expressed by Sean 
 MacBrlde, Prime Minister of Ireland, when 
 he said thafr they would like to cooperate, 
 but as a nation they could not. They are 
 denied the first condition of action as a na- 
 tion, namely, the possession and control of 
 the soil of their national territory, of which, 
 six counties are Icept by Britain and are 
 claimed as part of the United Kingdom — the 
 territorial Integrity of which is, in effect, 
 guaranteed by tlie Atlantic Treaty. 
 
 MAKING ENEMIES OUT OF NATXJBAL FRIENDS 
 
 Mr. President, we are making enemies 
 of the very people who want to be our 
 natural friends by our guaranteeing the 
 integrity of captured territory, in other 
 words, the colonial areas of the world. 
 
 It is obvious to anyone who will stop 
 and study the matter for a minute that 
 in the Middle East and throughout the 
 territory of northern Africa, what we 
 are doing is alienating the Moslem world. 
 If, on the other hand, we would say that 
 we are not supporting colonialism and 
 try to p.'otect a sovereign nation such as 
 Iran, which did nothing more than na- 
 tionalize its oil, we would be mailing 
 friends of all those people who are the 
 best fighters in Asia and who are more 
 than ready and willing to be on our side 
 in any battle. 
 
 ***** 
 
 EGYPTIAN PEEMIEK STATEMENT 
 
 Mr. President, I have before me a re- 
 lease dated October 10, 1951, regarding 
 the Egyptian Premier's presentation to 
 Parliament of draft bills as follows: 
 
 1. Abrogation of the 1936 treaty and 1899 
 convention with Britain. 
 
 2. Modification of the Egyptian Consti- 
 tution to emphasize the unity of Egypt and 
 the Sudan. 
 
 3. Draft constitution for the Sudan. 
 
 This release reads, in part, as follows: 
 Submission of these bills to Parliament at 
 this time will have a good effect on Egypt 
 and create a favorable atmosphere for the 
 reception of the proposed plans for the joint 
 defense of the Near East. 
 
 It should be Icept in mind, however, that 
 the recent action of the Egyptian Govern- 
 ment did not grow out of a desire on the 
 part of Egypt to divorce the country from 
 its friends. On the contrary Egypt will be 
 
 976510—41024 
 
 happy to cooperate with other nations so 
 long as such cooperation will help to guar- 
 ante3 a realization of Egyptian aspiirations 
 and place the country on au eqvial footing 
 with other nations. Once Egypt is assured 
 that national aspirations will be met, the 
 full strength of the country will be put forth 
 and Egyptians will assume their full re- 
 sponsibilities. 
 
 We have passed that point, Mr. Pres- 
 ident. The junior Senator from Ne- 
 vada stated in 1918 and in 1849 that we 
 had reached the point of decision. In- 
 San Francisco, in 1945, when I was act- 
 ing as special consultant to the Senate 
 Committee on Military Affairs — I was 
 not a Member of the Senate at that 
 time, but was an observer at the confer- 
 ence where the United Nations was 
 formed — the Nation was led to believe 
 that every country in the world would 
 be free, and if it was too small to protect 
 its sovereignty, then the United Nations 
 would form a protectorate. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the 
 Senator yield for a question? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. I yield. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. The distinguished 
 Senator was an observer at the San 
 Francisco conference, and he Icnows 
 that the United States and Great Brit- 
 ain did not vote that way. As a matter 
 of fact, they voted against the Premier 
 of Australia when he made a motion to 
 carry out the Atlantic Charter. Is not 
 that correct? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. I think that is correct. 
 The whole atmosphere of the United 
 Nations was to help people to become 
 independent, self-suporting, and not to 
 be humiliated and under the slavery of 
 other nations. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. That was the ostensi- 
 ble purpose, but it was not carried out, 
 was it? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. It never has been car- 
 ried out. It was simply a question of 
 getting some kind of a pact to show the 
 world that the United States of Amer- 
 ica had become the leader of the world, 
 and all we had to do was to support the 
 world. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. It is true, is it not, 
 that when the Original Thirteen Colonies 
 were organized into the United States 
 they all came in on an equal footing? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. That is correct. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. Yet, under the United 
 Nations Charter, the veto power was 
 given to five nations. 
 
 Mr. MALONE. That is correct. 
 
7 
 
 Mr. LANGER. Does the Senator sup- 
 pose for a moment that if we had given 
 the veto power over South Carolina to 
 New York, South Carolina would have 
 come into the Union? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. It never would have 
 come in, of course. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. That is what is wrong 
 with the United Nations, is it not? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. I think that is prob- 
 ably one of the weaknesses of the United 
 Nations. However, it has many other 
 weaknesses. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. We cannot amend the 
 Charter. Is not that true? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. I think that is sub- 
 stantially true. I would say to tne dis- 
 tinguished Senator from North Dakota 
 that at that time I said in a written re- 
 lease at San Francisco, which was pub- 
 lished by many of the western news- 
 papers, that there were not five major 
 nations, there were not four major na- 
 tions, there were not three major na- 
 tions; there were but two major nations, 
 and that the whole thing would degen- 
 erate into a matter of spheres of influence 
 of those two nations, Russia and the 
 United States. That was denied heatedly 
 by State Department officials, but that is 
 what has happened. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. Is it not true that his- 
 torians and others who have made a 
 study of the Charter, when we finally 
 analyze vi^hat they have said, have really 
 admitted that in all probability it might 
 lead to perpetual war, and that is what 
 we have? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. That is exactly what 
 we have. The President and the Secre- 
 tary of State have said that we are go- 
 ing to keep every area in the world sta- 
 tus quo, but everyone who will casually 
 examine the facts will know that is im- 
 possible because of the colonial slavery 
 conditions which have been maintained 
 for several hundred years. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. Does the Senator 
 from Nevada know of any reputable 
 military man who for a moment believes 
 that the United States can go all over 
 the world and maintain security? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. I know of no military 
 man, reputable or otherwise, and I 
 know of no reputable man of my ac- 
 quaintance, who thinks we can do what 
 Acheson and the President are trying to 
 do. 
 
 BILLIONS TO HOLD UP THE DEAD HAND OP 
 COLONIAL SLAVEEY 
 
 What I am trying to do is to lay this 
 matter before the Senate so that while 
 
 976510—41024 
 
 the Senate is appropriating $7,250,000,- 
 000, it may have the facts before it. 
 There will be another $1,000,009,000 for 
 the Export-Import Bank to lend at ran- 
 dom anywhere in the world, making 
 $8,500,000,000, and when we add the Point 
 4 money and the World Bank money, it 
 will be eight or nine billion dollars. 
 
 4: lie stc 41 * 
 
 The junior Senator from Nevada has 
 been in all the colonial slavery countries, 
 and if there is anything a Malayan or 
 an Indochinese or anyone in Africa could 
 think of v/orse than colonial slavery, I do 
 not know what it is. They do not know 
 the final consequence of communism, 
 and they cannot imagine anything worse 
 than colonial slavery. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the 
 Senator yield? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. I yield to the Senator 
 from North Dakota. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. Does the distinguished 
 Senator fromTSIevada know of any mis- 
 take our administration could have made 
 in foreign policy in any country which it 
 did not make? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. The junior Senator 
 from Nevada knows of none. 
 
 This dispatch proceeds further to say 
 referring to the treaty of 1936: 
 
 The British have violated the treaty in a 
 number of ways, two of which stand out In 
 importance. First, according to the treaty, 
 10,400 British troops are authorized to be 
 stationed in the Suez Canal zone but this 
 number has been exceeded. The figure now 
 is approximately 40,000. Secondly, the Brit- 
 ish have failed to carry out their pledge to 
 train and strengthen the Egyptian Army and 
 to supply it with modern equipment. 
 
 It is axiomatic that , no country can sur- 
 vive, particularly in such a troubled world as 
 now exists, without devices with which to 
 protect its national boundaries. Egypt needs 
 arms — not for aggression, but for national 
 defense and the defense of the free world. 
 Egypt feels helpless in a world that Is 
 armed to the teeth. 
 
 Current opinions appearing in the Ameri- 
 can press which link the present Iranian dis- 
 pute with Great Britain to the action taken 
 by the Egyptian Government are unfounded. 
 Needless to say that the Iranian question is 
 of recent origin, while Egypt's case dates 
 back to 1882, when British troops bombarded 
 Alexandria and occupied the country by 
 force, an occupation which has continued to 
 the present and is causing the present in- 
 dignation of the Egyptian people. 
 
 The second Egyptian problem concerns the 
 Sudan. Here the conflict, which has gone 
 on for many years, touches the average 
 Egyptian personally Inasmuch as he is re- 
 lated to the average Sudanese by race, lan- 
 guage, religion, and traditions.. Historically 
 
8 
 
 and geographically the Sudan and Egypt are 
 one country united by the river Nile. 
 
 The river is the lifeline of both Egypt and 
 the Sudan and has been so since Pharaonic 
 times. 
 
 The treaty of 1899 with Great Britain — 
 which was signed 17 years after the British 
 occupation of Ejypt — is a much discussed 
 document. This agreement was an informal 
 arrangement signed by the Egyptian Foreign 
 Minister and the British Consul General in 
 Cairo. No full powers were exhibited and the 
 text was not subject to any ratification nor 
 was it submitted ever for any legislative ap- 
 proval. Moreover, this agreement recognized 
 the sovereignty of Egypt over the Sudan and 
 established a systeni of Joint administration. 
 In practice, however, Egypt has never had 
 anything to do with this administration 
 which was and still is British. 
 
 Consistently and continuously, British pol- 
 io/ has been directed toward the tightening 
 of Britain's grip on the Sudan, the stifling 
 of Egyption Interests and the elimination of 
 all Egyptian Influence. In recent years, Brit- 
 ish propaganda has pictured the unity of the 
 Nile Valley as a concept of Egyptian imperi- 
 alism, as if it were imperialistic for Egyp- 
 tians and Sudanese to seek to preserve the 
 bonds which nature and history have forged. 
 It is ironical that this should come from the 
 British, who maintain in the Sudan an im- 
 posing number of colonial officials, backed 
 by British garrisons, and who are intent on 
 holding the territory indefinitely as a British 
 dependency. 
 
 To Egypt this unity is not a matter of colo- 
 nization; it is a matter of reintegration and 
 association. Egypt wants the Sudan to have 
 a liberal constitution, one that will be voted 
 freely by the Sudanese In elections not con- 
 trolled or dictated. We are certain that if 
 thj Sudanese are permitted to express their 
 choice freely, they would elect unity with 
 their northern brothers. 
 
 I shall not read in detail the address 
 delivered by the Egyptian Prime Min- 
 ister, H. E. Mustafa El Nahas Pasha, on 
 October 8, 1951, to both Houses of Par- 
 liament in Cairo. In his address, the 
 Prime Minister gave a comprehensive 
 review of Anglo -Egyptian relations. He 
 called for the cancellation of the 1936 
 Treaty of Alliance with Great Britain 
 anc" two agreements of 1899 concerning 
 the Sudan. 
 
 Nahas Pasha introduced bills to this 
 effect, which were unanimously ap- 
 proved on October 13. 
 
 Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
 sent to have printed in the Record at 
 this point the speech delivered by the 
 Prime Minister. 
 
 There being no objection, the speech 
 was ordered to be printed in the Record, 
 as follows: 
 
 World War Danger — Sovereignty lMPEnn,ED 
 Honorable members, when Egypt and 
 Great Britain concluded the Ti-eaty of Al- 
 liance on August 26, 1936, the danger of a 
 Second World War was approaching very 
 fast and the conflict between the Axis Powers 
 on the one hand and Great Britain and her 
 allies on the other was becoming graver and 
 graver. Fascist Italy had its covetous eye 
 on the Continent of Africa and was encir- 
 cling Egypt and the Sudan both on the 
 western frontiers of Egypt and on the south- 
 eastern frontiers of Sudan. British coloni- 
 zation, meantime, was battening with its 
 full weight on Egypt. British colonists 
 looked upon our independence and sov- 
 ereignty with great misgivings. They as- 
 sumed for themselves the responsibility of 
 the protection of foreigners. They imposed 
 their authority on our Internal, interna- 
 tional, and financial affairs. This hampered 
 the progress of the country toward complete 
 Independence and held it back from proceed- 
 ing to its appropriate status among the 
 family of nations. Foreign capitulations, 
 to give a third phase of the situation in 1936, 
 were an instrument by which the financial, 
 judiciary, and administrative sovereignty of 
 Egypt were imperiled. In themselves the 
 capitulations reduced the country to humil- 
 ity and blocked every way of our national 
 activity. Fourthly, the English had ex- 
 ploited the assassination of the Sirdar in- 
 cident in 1924 and cut every practical rela- 
 tion between Egypt and the Sudan. They 
 had evicted the Egyptian Army from the 
 Sudan and dismissed the Egyptian personnel 
 from its administration. Fifthly, in 1936 
 the Egyptian Army felt the urgent need of 
 liberating itself from English custody. It 
 felt the urgent need for acquiring the neces- 
 sary training and preparing for the defense 
 of the homeland. 
 
 ARMS WERE PROMISED 
 
 In these circumstances and under the 
 pressure of these factors, both material and 
 moral, Egypt was compelled to sign the 
 treaty of August 26, 1936. It was obliged 
 to sign the treaty in order to cope with the 
 expected dangers of the Second World War, 
 and in order to come out in the aftermath of 
 that war as an independent nation to redeem 
 itself from the disgrace of foreign capitula- 
 tion, and in order to establish without delay 
 the Egyptian Army. According to the obli- 
 gations of the treaty the British Govern- 
 ment pledged to train the Egyptian Army 
 and provide it with arms and equipment so 
 that it m.ight replace in the shortest period 
 possible the limited number of British forces 
 allowed by the treaty to be stationed in the 
 Suez Canal Zone. Thus Egypt intended to 
 deliver Itself eventually from every vestige 
 of the British occupation. 
 
 SHARED THE SACRIFICES 
 
 In September 1939 the Imminent danger 
 materialized, and Egypt provided Great 
 Britain and her allies with the greatest serv- 
 
 976510—41024 
 
9 
 
 ices and the most profitable assistance. She 
 shared with them the most dire sacrifices and 
 her assistance had a far-reaching influence 
 toward winning the war. To this have 
 testified several such great personalities of 
 Britain itself, military and civil, as Lord 
 Alexander, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Eden, and Mr. 
 Bevin. 
 
 AXIS POWERS BEATEN 
 
 The final victory of the United Nations in 
 that war gave an utterly new turn to the 
 circumstances in which the 1936 treaty had 
 been contracted. The Axis Powers, against 
 whom the treaty had been intended, were 
 completely beaten and their military forces 
 were Irrecoverably wiped out; and with their 
 defeat vanished the danger that had shown 
 itself in 1936. On the other hand, the victors 
 considered themselves as one united block. 
 They joined in establishing a comprehensive 
 system through which international rela- 
 tions were to be organized. Thus, not only 
 has the threat of war against Egypt become 
 nonexistent from the side of the Axis Powers, 
 but any threat of war from any other side 
 has become nonexistent too. 
 
 CHAETEE OF U. N. PARAMOUNT 
 
 The Charter of the United Nations con- 
 tracted in San Francisco in June 1945 was 
 created to carry out these objectives. In 
 the question of international transactions, 
 the Charter is based on principles quite dif- 
 ferent from those on which the 193S treaty 
 was negotiated. The Charter of the United 
 Nations bans war as an Implement for set- 
 tling international disputes; it sets up the 
 machinery of peace through which such dis- 
 putes should be decided. The Charter for- 
 bids that nations encroach on the independ- 
 ence of other nations or question the unity 
 of their territories. It asserts the right of 
 nations in self-determination and provides 
 within its texts for the equality of sover- 
 eignty among member states. Furthermore, 
 according to the United Nations Charter, if 
 other interstate agreements run counter to 
 the obligations devolving from the Charter, 
 the latter will have to be adhered to and 
 not the former 
 
 TRIED FOE REVISION 
 
 In view of all that, and in view of the 
 fact that the Egyptian Nation has stood 
 united in regard to the immediate evacua- 
 tion of British troops from Egypt and the 
 Sudan and for the unification of these two 
 parts of our homeland the Egyptian Govern- 
 ment negotiated with the Government of 
 Britain with an idea of revising the treaty 
 of 1936 and superseding it with a treaty 
 that might be appropriate to the new inter- 
 national outlook. These negotiations started 
 at the beginning of April 1946 and termi- 
 nated at the end of October of the same year, 
 and the outcome was a draft treaty initialled 
 by Sldky and Bevin. The two parties, how- 
 ever, differed as to the interpretation of the 
 Sudan Protocol annexed to that draft treaty 
 and the agreement did not materialize. The 
 
 public opinion in Egypt unanimously re- 
 jected the agreement as it did not satisfy 
 national aspirations. 
 
 EGYPT'S ACTION OF 1947 
 
 On July 8, 1947, the Egyptian Government 
 brought the dispute between Egypt and Great 
 Britain before the Security Council. Egypt 
 pressed for the immediate and complete 
 evacuation of the British forces from Egypt 
 and the Sudan, and for the termination of 
 the administrative system of governm.ent of 
 the Sudan. The Security Council discussed 
 the question in 11 sessions from August 5 to 
 September 10, 1947, but it was unable to 
 issue definite decisions since no motion for 
 the settlement of the question gained the 
 required majority. Both parties were called 
 upon, through everyone of the motions pre- 
 sented, to resume direct negotiations with 
 a view to reaching a mutual agreement. The 
 Chairman decided to retain the dispute on 
 the agenda of the Council, and no further 
 step was taken by the Council beyond that 
 stage. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE PROLONGED 
 
 After this, the Egyptian Government ex- 
 changed with the administration of the 
 Sudan on the one hand, and with the British 
 Government on the other, prolonged cor- 
 respondence regarding the administrative 
 and legislative reforms in the Sudan. Con- 
 versations in this connection were held from 
 May 6 to 28, 1948, between the Egyptian 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs and the British 
 Ambassador to Egypt. Both correspondence 
 and conversations terminated in utter fail- 
 ure, and the two parties did not come to 
 any agreement even though the scope of con- 
 versation was limited and the discussions 
 did not include the unification of Egypt and 
 the Sudan. 
 
 In January 1950 elections were held in 
 Egypt and the present Government was voted 
 into power. During the elections the Egyp- 
 tian Nation voiced again its unanimous de- 
 mand for the realization of its national aspi- 
 rations. The Government, in the speech 
 from the th»'one, commented that unparal- 
 leled unanimity in the following words; 
 
 VALLEY BOUND BY SHACKLES 
 
 "The Nation has been unanimous to a 
 man regarding the deliverance of our val- 
 ley — Egypt and the Sudan — from the shack- 
 les that might restrict its freedom and in- 
 dependence, so that it may regain Its pres- 
 tige and proceed to its appropriate status in 
 international life. My Government will 
 make the most determined efforts to accom- 
 plish the evacuation (of the British troops) 
 from the two parts of the valley and to 
 safeguard Its unity under the Egyptian 
 Crown against any misusage or encroach- 
 ment." 
 
 The Government then proceeded to carry 
 out its pledges. Its first step was to try 
 to reach an agreement with the English. We 
 engaged in a long series of conversations 
 which lagged for months; we tried in every 
 
 976510—41024 
 
10 
 
 possible way to convince the English of the 
 rights of this country; we based our sug- 
 gestions on realistic solutions but all our 
 ellorts were in vain. On November 16, 
 1960, the Egyptian Government felt that in 
 the honorable carrying out of its pledges it 
 could do nothing else than to announce its 
 intention of canceling the 1936 treaty to- 
 gether witli the two agreements of January 
 19 and July 10, 1899, regarding the joint 
 administration of the Sudan. 
 
 THREE MONTHS LATE 
 
 The conversations between the two par- 
 ties, however, went on. Our Minister of 
 Foreign Affairs proceeded to London for di- 
 rect talks with the British Secretary of the 
 Foreign Office, These talks terminated on 
 Decembsr 15, 1950, in a decision taken by the 
 British Secretary to the effect that he would 
 submit to the British Cabinet, a plan em- 
 bodying new practical measures to be taken 
 in order to solve the question of defense. 
 He said he hoped to be able to report the 
 reaction of his Government by mid-Jamiary 
 1951, or shortly after. The promised sug- 
 gestions were received by the Egyptian Gov- 
 ernment as late as April 11, 1951 — 3 months 
 after their fixed time, and then they were 
 very far from satisfying our national de- 
 mands. 
 
 On April 24, 1951, the Egyptian Govern- 
 ment refused these suggestions, both as a 
 whole and in detail. We sent back counter- 
 suggestions regarding evacuation and the 
 unity of Egypt and the Sudan. 
 
 The British Government made a reply 
 to our countersuggestions only on June 8, 
 1951. 
 
 While these conversations were lagging, 
 the British Foreign Secretary delivered his 
 address in the House of Commons on July 30, 
 1951. In his address he announced that 
 the British Government was still clinging 
 to occupation and the idea of the joint 
 defense in peace under the pretext of in- 
 ternational necessity. He also asserted that 
 the British Government objected to the uni- 
 fication of Egypt and the Sudan under the 
 Egyptian crown, giving as an excuse that 
 the will of the Sudanese had to be first 
 consulted. 
 
 POLICY STILL COLONIZATION 
 
 This announcement was an indication 
 that there is an unbridgeable gap between 
 the two parties. The British Government 
 stiU bases its policy on the antiquated prin- 
 ciples of colonization and empire that were 
 so unsuccessful in America, in India, and 
 Iran. It still assumes responsibilities that 
 are not its own and resists national rights 
 with various excuses and pretexts. 
 
 EGYPT READY TO CONSIDER 
 
 In answer to the British Secretary's ad- 
 dress, the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Af- 
 fairs made an announcement on August 6, 
 1951, before tlie two Houses of Parliament 
 to the effect that the British Foreign Secre- 
 tary had with his address, closed the door of 
 
 976510—41024: 
 
 conversations. But the British Foreign Sec- 
 retary sent me, on August 17, 1951, a personal 
 message denying that he had ever closed the 
 door and that on the contrary he was in- 
 vestigating a new plan on the matter of de- 
 fense. In my answer to him I enumerated 
 the reasons why we considered that he had 
 brought the conversations to a close, and 
 I added that the evacuation of British forces 
 from Egypt is only one part of the Egyptian 
 question, the other part being the unity of 
 Egypt and the Sudan tinder the Egyptian 
 crown. These two parts of the question, I 
 said, are one and indivisible. I also stated 
 that what he had said about the Sudan would 
 be sufficient reason why the conversations 
 should cease. I regretted that his personal 
 message to me did not alter the situation, 
 yet I told him that nothing would please me 
 more than these suggestions if they were re- 
 ceived in time, and if the Egyptian Govern- 
 ment found therein practical evidence that 
 Egypt's national rights would be respected. 
 In that case the Egyptian Government would 
 be ready to reconsider its attitude. 
 
 BRITAIN FAILS TO FIX DATE 
 
 My answer was sent on August 26, 1951, 
 and I received another personal message from 
 the British Foreign Secretary on September 
 21, 1951, to the effect that he was unable to 
 fix a date on which he could send his sugges- 
 tion concerning the matter of defense and 
 the Sudan. Upon receiving the message I 
 asked H. E., the British Ambassador in Cairo, 
 to transmit to the British Foreign Secretary 
 that the Egyptian Government was bound to 
 announce its plans to Parliament before the 
 end of the current recess at the beginning of 
 October. 
 
 LAGGED FOR 16 MONTHS 
 
 Honorable deputies, this is the history of 
 the political conversations between the two 
 countries. Needless to say England loses 
 nothing by delaying and deferring these is- 
 sues: The British occupation is existent in 
 the Suez Canal zone and the British rule 
 under the guise of the Condominion is carry- 
 ing out its disintegrating effects in the Su- 
 dan. As to Egypt, it has become impossible 
 for her to longer continue an impossible 
 situation. These conversations have lagged 
 for 16 months. They have been only one 
 feature of a long series of endeavors carried 
 out by Egypt since the end of World War II 
 to convince Great Britain that she should 
 respect Egypt's national rights and cease 
 encroaching on them with her efforts of 
 colonizing supremacy. 
 
 Therefore, I find it incumbent on myself, 
 now that the current parliamentary session 
 has extended to 11 months and has almost 
 overlapped the next one, to announce before 
 your honorable House that the Egyptian 
 Government considered that the time limit 
 we promised Mr. Morrison in our personal 
 message has expired, and that the conversa- 
 tions between tlie two countries have ceased 
 in view of their futility. 
 
11 
 
 As our Incessant endeavors to realize our 
 national demands through agreement have 
 failed, it is time that your Government ful- 
 filled the promises given In the last speech 
 from the throne and to take immediately the 
 necessary measures to cancel the treaty of 
 August 26, 1936 and the two agreements of 
 January 19 and July 10, 1899 regarding the 
 administration of the Sudan. 
 
 I place the, royal decrees prepared for these 
 steps In the Office of this House. 
 
 GREEN BOOK IS DUE 
 
 The Government intends to Issue very 
 shortly a green book: embodying the records 
 of the conversations and the documents 
 related to them. It will be shown clearly 
 through these documents that we made in- 
 defatigable endeavors to come to an agree- 
 ment. We never gave up patience; but we 
 supported our demands with irrefutable evi- 
 dence; but it was the British who persisted 
 on the antiquated principles of a colonial 
 empire, which in themselves form the real 
 threat to International security and hamper 
 the e'fforts for carrying out for universal 
 peace. 
 
 Honorable members, after stating the fore- 
 going I need not make any comments on the 
 bills of law I am Introducing; nor need I jus- 
 tify their enactment. The circumstances 
 and reasons I have just stated are grounds 
 enough for such justification. And, yet, I 
 should like to enlighten you more regarding 
 this grave historical event. 
 
 The English have argued that Egypt cannot 
 cancel the 1936 treaty or the 1899 covenants, 
 but there are numerous precedents for the 
 unilateral revocation of international trea- 
 ties and agreements. The following are som'e 
 examples : 
 
 UNITED STATES BROKE 1850 PACT 
 
 1. In 1884 the United States of America 
 canceled the Anglo-American Treaty, con- 
 cluded on April 19, 185D, regarding the con- 
 struction of a maritime canal in Central 
 America. 
 
 2. On December 9, 1905, Prance canceled 
 the agreements of the concordat contracted 
 by herself and the Pope on July 15, 1831. 
 
 3. On October 3, 1908, Austria and Hun- 
 gary canceled the Treaty of Berlin 1878, by 
 annexing to her territories Bosnia and Her- 
 zegovina. 
 
 4. On October 5, 1908, Bulgaria canceled 
 the Treaty of Berlin by proclaiming her own 
 independence. 
 
 5. On September 9, 1914, Turkey canceled 
 the system ol foreign capitulations that had 
 been organized through international obliga- 
 tions. 
 
 6. In 1919 China canceled the 1913 and 
 1915 treaties with Russia and Mongolia. 
 
 7. Between 1926 and 1928 China canceled 
 all the treaties to which she had been an un- 
 equal party. 
 
 8. In 1932 France denounced the payment 
 of her debts for the United States of America, 
 which were contracted through agreement 
 on April 29, 1926. 
 
 IRISH CANCEL TREATY 
 
 9. In November 1933 the Irish Free State 
 canceled the Anglo-Irish Treaty concluded 
 on December 5, 1921. 
 
 10. On September 13, 1934, Poland canceled 
 her international obligation regarding the 
 protection of minorities. 
 
 11. In December 1938 the Japanese Govern- 
 ment canceled the Nine Power Pact signed 
 on February 6, 1922, regarding the principles 
 which had guided these powers in their deal- 
 ings with China and had determined their 
 relations to that country. 
 
 These are various examples of the prece- 
 dents of the unilateral cancellation of in- 
 tern .tioual treaties and agreements. They 
 differ as to cause and circumstances and 
 the other party always argued that the can- 
 cellation was not legal, but they were can- 
 celed in practice and the cancellation had 
 its legal effects in all events. It may be said 
 that most of the countries that resorted to 
 that measure were relying on material force; 
 and that Is true. This does not apply to us 
 in this case as we have, in revoking the 
 1936 treaty, only the moral support of our 
 own clear rights, universal justice, and the 
 sublime principles embodied in the United 
 Nations Charter. Our case, however, is far 
 more justifiable than any of the precedents 
 cited in the foregoing. Not one of them 
 comes near to our own case as regards the 
 soundness of evidence, the urgency of ne- 
 cessity, and the force of the grounds on 
 which we base our cancellation. These 
 grounds can be summed up in the following : 
 
 EGYPT HAD NO FP.EE CHOICE 
 
 First, this treaty was concluded under the 
 iniluence of British occupation and the 
 Egyptian party did not enjoy at that time 
 necessary right of complete free choice. 
 This is not an excuse with which we try to 
 Justify our attitude toward the treaty, but 
 it was a view taken by the late Mr. Bevin, 
 the former British Foreign Secretary. Mr. 
 Bevin announced this view in the most un- 
 equivocal terms when the dispute between 
 Russia and Iran was brought before the Se- 
 curity Council. He said that the British 
 Government regretted that an agreement 
 had been imposed on Iran by force while the 
 Government of Soviet Russia occupied part 
 of Iran. 
 
 On the same occasion Mr. Bevin said in 
 effect, "We are powerful; we are sometimes 
 called the Big Three; and we are undoubted- 
 ly identified with power. Power has its 
 weight in negotiations." 
 
 Our view of this matter was adopted by 
 the Security Council as its decision implied 
 that the existence of foreign troops in an- 
 other country's territory deprives her of her 
 freedom of choice in negotiations. 
 
 WHOLE NATION INVOLVED 
 
 This is then the resolution given by the 
 Security Council and the viewpoint of the 
 British Foreign Secretary regarding agree- 
 ments concluded under the domination of 
 foreign occupation; and it Is the true judg- 
 
 976510—41024 
 
12 
 
 ment that should be passed on the 1936 
 treaty which was concluded under the Brit- 
 ish occupation of the v/hole country of Egypt 
 and not only of some of its parts, as was the 
 case with Iran. 
 
 I find it necessary here to explain what 
 we mean by the pressure of foreign occupa- 
 tion. This does not mean that anybody 
 exercised any material coercion on us when 
 we signed the treaty, but we mean that 
 there was a state of moral coercion prevail- 
 ing in the country. Egypt was at the time 
 stifled under the occupation which domi- 
 nated every phase of our life and tampered 
 with each of our interests. Foreign capitu- 
 lations had, on the other hand, their suffo- 
 cating v/eight and we sought for an outlet. 
 The treaty was only the first step in this 
 direction and it should be followed by larger 
 steps. 
 
 Secondly, the circumstances in which the 
 treaty was concluded have undergone a com- 
 plete change. This we have sufficiently ex- 
 plained in the foregoing. 
 
 TWO TREATIES IN CONFLICT 
 
 Thirdly, the treaty contradicts the Suez 
 Canal Convention on the one hand and the 
 U. N. Charter on the other. Both of these 
 have the priority of execution and respect. 
 The Suez Canal Convention had been con- 
 cluded a long time before the treaty by sev- 
 eral nations with a view of creating an im- 
 portant international status as to the neu- 
 trality of the canal and the complete free- 
 dom of passage to all countries. According 
 to this convention the signatory parties are 
 forbidden to seek any particular privileges 
 whether regional, commercial, or otherwise, 
 through international agreements. Accord- 
 ing to the same convention Egypt alone, as 
 the proprietor of the region, has been placed 
 in charge of the defense of the neutrality 
 of the canal and the safety of passage 
 through It. This has not been complied with 
 by the treaty. The treaty itself is nothing 
 but a collection of privileges gained by 
 Britain against the independence of Egypt 
 and its sovereignty; and Britain should not 
 have seized this opportunity of her occupa- 
 tion and gained for herself all these privi- 
 leges, thus running counter to the text of 
 the 18C8 convention. 
 
 As to the United Nations Charter, I have 
 explained in the foregoing the points where 
 the 1936 treaty contradicted the Charter. 
 I need not repeat tlie fact that the Charter 
 is most important and that it should have 
 the priority of our adherence if any treaties 
 were repugnant to it. 
 
 BRITISH ARE VIOLATORS 
 
 Finally, the United Kingdom herself has 
 again and again violated the treaty. In fact, 
 the English never adhere to the treaty unless 
 they seek some pretext to support their occu- 
 pation or to disunite Egypt and the Sudan. 
 The bonds and obligations they undertook 
 according to the treaty weigh nothing in 
 their view. They exceed the number of forces 
 allowed to be stationed in the Suez Canal 
 
 976510—41024 
 
 zone; they overstep the bounds limited for 
 these forces; they refuse to comply with the 
 health and customs measures required by the 
 Egyptian laws; they stand against the train- 
 ing of the Egyptian Army and preparing it 
 according to the obligations undertaken by 
 them in the treaty. In the Palestinian ques- 
 tion they took, and they are still taking, only 
 a hostile course. This has exposed Egypt to 
 the gravest of dangers, though, according to 
 the treaty, the British are bound in their 
 foreign policy not to take an action hostile 
 to our alliance with them. Furthermore 
 they have pursued the policy of separating 
 the Sudan and Egypt, and Southern Sudan 
 from Northern Sudan. They have been only 
 aiming at attaining their objectives of colo- 
 nial empire by not complying with the 1936 
 treaty and the 1899 agreement at one and 
 the same time. 
 
 ACTING UPON LEGAL RIGHTS 
 
 Honorable Deputies, you will realize from 
 the foregoing that Egypt, In canceling the 
 1936 treaty, is only acting within her legal 
 rights. The grounds we have discussed are 
 the same for which we are also canceling the 
 two agreements of 1899. These two agree- 
 ments are still less binding than the treaty 
 Itself. They were concluded at thj" time 
 when Egypt did not possess the right of en- 
 tering into political treaties. Egypt was dic- 
 tated to and coerced in the matter with the 
 conventions signed by the Egyptian Secre- 
 tary for the Foreign AfEalrs Administration 
 on the one hand and the British Proconsul 
 on the other. They are related to the ad- 
 ministration of the Sudan; and the text does 
 not include any time limit for the status 
 imposed upon Egypt. The two agreements 
 have only created a temporary state of affairs 
 dictated by British authority in that period; 
 and they should be terminated by the dis- 
 appearance of that authority. 
 
 It would have sufficed if our Minister of 
 Foreign Affairs had issued a decree canceling 
 these agreements. But, In view of the rela- 
 tion between this act and the main' national 
 case, we have included it in the bill for 
 the cancellation of the treaty so that it may 
 have your sanction. 
 
 KING OF EGYPT AND StJIIAN 
 
 By the cancellation of the treaty and the 
 tv/o agreements the status of the Sudan 
 before the British occupation Is regained; 
 and the King of Egypt will be the King of 
 Egypt and the Sudan. 
 
 A system of government has to be organ- 
 ized in order to replace the existent admin- 
 istrative avithorlty in the Sudan. A bill for 
 this system of government is submitted to 
 you. Through this bill the Sudanese, both 
 in the north and in the south, will enjoy 
 complete self-rule and a true democratic 
 constitution. You will And that an outline 
 of the principles has been drawn and the 
 details are left to the Sudanese themselves 
 to set up a constituent assembly truly repre- 
 senting the Sudanese. 
 
13 
 
 The constitutional basis on which the Gov- 
 ernment of the Sudan will be organized will 
 be in perfect harmony with the natural union 
 of Egypt and the Sudan : this ancient union 
 was recognized by Winston Churchill him- 
 self when he stated that the two parts of 
 the Nile Valley form a palm tree that has 
 its roots in the Sudan and its branches in 
 the delta. 
 
 NO TIME FOa Tftl.K 
 
 The time of talking has passed: and we 
 have now to work without sound or fury. 
 The situation demands united efforts on the 
 part of all parties and we are determined 
 to endure grim sacrifices to attain cur Just 
 demands. 
 
 It is a divine omen that these measures 
 will be taken under the guidance of His 
 Majesty, King Farouk I, whose birth coin- 
 cided with the birth of our revolution in 
 1919. 
 
 Honorable deputies, for Egypt I concluded 
 the treaty in 1936 and lor Egypt I am asking 
 you now to cancel It. 
 
 Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, a dis- 
 patch in the New York Times of Oc- 
 tober 18, 1951, brings up to date the ac- 
 tions by the British in Eg37pt and in the 
 Sudan. I ask unanimous consent to have 
 this dispatch pi'inted in the Record at 
 this point as a part of my remarks. 
 
 There being no objection, the dispatch 
 was ordered to be printed in tlie Record, 
 as follows: 
 
 Egypt Sats Beitain Iulegaixy Seizes Canal 
 Zone Areas — Interior Minister Charges 
 Places Unoeh Cairo Rule Have Been Oc- 
 cupied — British £end in More Men — 
 Paratroopers Are Flown Prom Cyprus — 
 Premier Usges the Egyptians To Remain 
 Calm 
 
 (By Albion Ross) 
 
 Cairo, Egypt, October 17. — Puad Serag el- 
 Din Pasha, Egyptian Minister of the Interior, 
 accused the British tonight of occupying 
 Egyptian installations in many parts of the 
 Suez Canal zone. 
 
 His statement, made in the Senate, came 
 shortly after Premier Mustafa Nashas Pasha 
 had made a ringing appeal to the Nation to 
 remain calm in what he called the greatest 
 crisis in Egyptian history. 
 
 Earlier in the day the British began fer- 
 rying by Air Transport 3,000 paratroopers 
 from the Island of Cyprus to reinforce their 
 garrison at Adaba, 15 miles south of Suez. 
 
 Other British forces occupied various lines 
 of communication, including a bridge at 
 Kantara, the only bridge crossing the Suez 
 Canal, and bridges on the Port Tewfik-Suez 
 Hoad. 
 
 CHARGES MADE AGAINST BRITISH 
 
 Speaking of the day's events the Interior 
 Minister said: 
 
 "British, forces have occupied the customs 
 passport offices and the quarantine offices in 
 Suez after having made a forced entry. In 
 
 the two cities of Ismailia and Port Said, 
 British troops have occupied the railway of- 
 fices and the office of medical inspection, 
 breaking down the doors and arresting cer- 
 tain of the employees, and taking their arms. 
 They struck a soldier when he refused to give 
 up his arms and left him unconscious. 
 
 "British troops have occupied the Ferdan 
 Bridge. [This is the sole bridge across the 
 Suez Canal and used by the railway to Pal- 
 estine.] British troops . have occupied the 
 public vitilities in Ismailia, such as the water- 
 works and some bridges. 
 
 "British troops have seized the railway 
 from Naflsha to Ismailia and halted com- 
 munications and are inspecting trains. Brit- 
 ish troops also have seized ferries and all 
 means of traversing the canal from the east- 
 ern bank. 
 
 SAYS VESSBL WAS SEIZED 
 
 "British troops have seized a vessel stand- 
 ing on the canal bank on the Sinai side and 
 they have surrounded an Egyptian patrol on 
 tlie eastern bank of the canal and have pre- 
 vented it from being supplied with water 
 and food." 
 
 Mr. LANGEE. Mr. President, will the 
 Senator yield for a question? 
 
 Mr. MALONE. I am happy to yield to 
 the distinguished Senator from North 
 Dakota. 
 
 Mr. LANGER. I noticed in the news- 
 papers a few days ago that during the 
 past 24 months 13 premiers have been 
 assassinated in the areas concerning 
 which the distinguished Senator is 
 speaking. I should Uke to have the 
 opinion of the distinguished Senator as 
 to why those assassinations took place. 
 
 Mr. MALONE. In answer to the dis- 
 tinguished Senator from North Dakota, 
 the junior Senator from Nevada will say 
 that the colonial slave nations of the 
 world are on the move. ■ Make no mistake 
 about it. It is the humble opinion of 
 the Senator from Nevada that with all 
 our power we cannot stop the movement. 
 We really have no decision to make in 
 the matter. If we could stop it, if it 
 were possible to maintain the status quo 
 of colonial slavery in the world, starting 
 in the Malayan States in the Far East, 
 in Indochina, and going over to Egypt, 
 the Sudan country, and Africa, the ques- 
 tion would be whether we should stop 
 the movement. The junior Senator from 
 Nevaia was in every nation in Africa. 
 Let me say to the distinguished Senator 
 from North Dakota that the slavery 
 which we had in the United States was a 
 very pale thing in comparison to what is 
 going on in Africa now, aU the way from 
 Liberia and Morocco to South Africa, and 
 in nations of the Middle East which 
 
 976510—41024 
 
14 
 
 have been almost entirely controlled by 
 empire-minded nations for a long time. 
 
 For perhaps 100 years the British were 
 able to maintain order in the Far East 
 and in other countries mainly by virtue 
 ^of the fact that they had the best fleet 
 in the world, which dominated the con- 
 trolled areas. 
 
 Then the airplane came along, am", the 
 fleet faded out of the picture. Now we 
 have other means of warfare. We have 
 the submarine and the atom bomb. 
 Atomic power is going to do more to end 
 Quickly the colonial system throughout 
 the world than- perhaps any other single- 
 factor. 
 
 I say again to the Senate, stop, look, 
 and listen. If we could hold the status 
 quo in all the colonial slavery nations 
 of the world, and all the dominated na- 
 tions, it vi'ould then be a question of 
 whether we should do it. I say without 
 fear of contradiction — and the next 2 or 
 3 years will demonstrate it beyond ques- 
 tion — that we cannot hold the status quo. 
 ***** 
 
 AMEHICA'S FOREIGN POLICY 
 
 Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I wish at 
 this time to refer briefly to the difficulty 
 between the British and the Egyptians in 
 the Su-sz Canal area. We note in today's 
 dispatches that Egyptian tanks and ar- 
 tillery pulled back from the bristling 
 British defense perimeter in the Suez 
 Canal zone. A dispatch from London 
 said the Egyptians retired after having 
 received a polite warning from the Brit- 
 ish commander to stay out of the Brit- 
 ish-occupied area. However, the Egyp- 
 tians made a new threat on paper to 
 expel the British, and Moslem extremists 
 demanded refuge against the British 
 troops. The canal area was set off and 
 placed on a war footing. 
 
 COLONIAL SLAVERY SYSTEM CENTERS IN ENGLISH 
 TEAEE 
 
 ' Mr. President, in connection with the 
 address which the junior Senator from 
 Nevada made 2 or 3 days ago about the 
 situation in that area, I wish to call at- 
 tention to a dispatch dated October 11 
 of this year by Mr. George Sokolsky. 
 He is a well-known columnist and a 
 great historian, having had valuable ex- 
 perience throughout the world. Mr. 
 Sokolsky says: 
 
 The colonization of Asia and Africa by 
 European countries moved Into stride as 
 the steamship replaced the sailing vessel. 
 Increased mobility, developing navies, and 
 
 978510—41024 
 
 the rising industrialization of countries 
 using steam-driven machinery (to which 
 . later was added electricity) gave Western 
 Europe and subsequently the United States 
 an advantage not only over primitive lands 
 but even over formerly great countries such 
 as China, India, Iran, Egypt, and to a degree, 
 Bussia. 
 
 r Power lay in coal and its utilization. 
 
 Great Britain became in the nineteenth 
 century the principal colonial and capitalis- ! 
 tic power on earth, centering in London con- | 
 trol over shipping, banliing, and insurance. 
 While Amsterdam and Paris competed with 
 London, both were subordinated to it, and 
 when the Unitsd States entered the market 
 for international finance and commerce, New 
 York and Boston also subordinated them- 
 selves to London. 
 
 , ^ * * * * # 
 
 Mr. President, Mr. Sokolsky traces the 
 history of power, and he points to atomic 
 povi^er as the coming power which will 
 completely destroy all such domination. 
 He points out that the oil-producing 
 areas destroy the domination of the 
 coal-producing countries. In line with" 
 that statement and the debate on the 
 Senate floor 2 days ago, I would say it is 
 time for the United States to stop, look, 
 and listen when it comes to the point of 
 making a decision as to whether to sup- 
 port the empire-minded nations in their 
 domination of the so-called backward 
 colonial nations. Those nations are not 
 so backward as to prevent their having 
 developed their oil-producing areas, and 
 I would say again, the nations which 
 have been dominated for 300 years are 
 on the move. 
 
 ***** 
 
 I call attention, Mr. President, to the 
 fact that the President of the United 
 States has said that we intend to hold 
 the status quo of 1945. He has said that 
 whenever anyone bigins to move, there 
 the American troops will be found. I 
 want to warn the United States Senate 
 that we may be heading into something 
 that is not thoroughly understood, and 
 that now is the time to study it. \ 
 
 Mr. President, I think it is tim-e that 
 the United States Congress take this sit- 
 uation in hand to determine where the 
 administration is leading us and do 
 something about it. \ 
 
 England says that it is protecting the , 
 Suez Canal. Now, let us analyze that.! 
 From whom is she protecting it? Prom' 
 whom are we protecting her? I suppose 
 from Russia. That is the only nation we 
 had in mind when we appropriated] 
 around $100,000,000,000 in one year. 
 
15 
 
 England cannot protect the Suez Canal 
 from Russia. It would take the inter- 
 ference of the United States of America 
 to protect that area. Britain could not 
 protect the Suez Canal any more than 
 Egypt could protect it. 
 
 ENGLAND IN EGYPT TO HOLD SUDAN AND NILE 
 TRADE 
 
 Let us get at the bottom of the question 
 and study it a little more. What are the 
 British there for? They are there for one 
 thing, of course, and that is to dominate 
 the economy of Egypt and to keep con- 
 trol of the Sudan country and upper Nile. 
 
 If the United States must do the fight- 
 ing and the financing anyway — I just 
 pose this question — should we not do a 
 little financing of Egypt and support 
 Egypt's troops? Egypt has more than 
 100,000 troops ready to move into the 
 
 area. They say that Britain has broken 
 their treaty with them; that Britain was 
 to furnish them with certain arms so 
 that the troops would be ready to fight. 
 They have paid for the arms and have 
 not received them. 
 
 WHICH SIDE IN TRADE WAE DO WE TAKE, 
 AND WHY? 
 
 Let us find out whom we are protect- 
 ing, and why. If we are to help an em- 
 pire-minded nation in its selfish, unfair, 
 immoral farming of the Sudan country 
 and interfere with the economics of an- 
 other sovereign country, let us admit 
 that fact. 
 
 * * • * • 
 
 It is time the American Government 
 adopted American policies which will in- 
 sure our security and continued well- 
 being as a nation. 
 
 976510—41024 
 
 o