383.0063/13
The Chargé in Egypt (Hare) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 17.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Legation’s despatches No. 2077 of April 24, 1940, and No. 2092 of May 7, 1940, regarding a bill submitted [Page 498] to Parliament providing for the prohibition of religious propaganda, and to report recent developments in that connection.
It will be recalled that in the Legation’s despatch No. 2092 it was stated that Dr. Adams, Dean of the School of Oriental Studies of the American University of Cairo, had advised the Legation that he had been informed by reliable sources that action on the bill had been postponed until the next session of Parliament.…the missionary interests concerned suffered a rude awakening when, assuming that the matter had been dropped, they suddenly learned that the bill had been approved by the Senate Committee and was due to come up for vote before the Senate on May 16th. As a matter of fact, the Senate postponed action on the bill for one week, but the missionary interests concerned are not inclined to regard this short respite as particularly reassuring.
On May 18th Dr. Wendell Cleland called at the Legation to discuss this matter with a view to possible intervention by the Legation to prevent the passage of the bill. Dr. Cleland, whose apprehensions regarding the possible consequences of the passage of the bill were mentioned in the Legation’s despatch no. 2077 of April 24, 1940, said that he felt that a basis for such representations was contained in the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Montreux Convention,35 providing for non-discriminatory treatment of foreigners. He added that he felt certain that there would be no question of applying the proposed bill equally to propaganda activities conducted by Christians and Moslems and he seemed to feel that a suggestion to that effect to the Egyptian authorities and reference to Article 2 of the Montreux Convention might serve as a deterrent to the passage of the bill.
I observed to Dr. Cleland that I was doubtful whether the proposal which he suggested would be either justifiable or tactful; not justifiable, because it seemed doubtful if Article 2 of the Montreux Convention was intended to cover a case of this kind; not tactful, because it would amount to accusing the Egyptian authorities of discrimination in advance of any action on their part, an accusation to which they could, and undoubtedly would, take exception. However, I told Dr. Cleland that I would study the matter with a view to ascertaining whether there might seem to be any justifiable ground upon which objection to the bill could be lodged. I added that any approach to the Egyptian authorities by the Legation would, of course, be contingent upon obtaining advance approval from the Department.
[Page 499]The same day that I talked to Dr. Cleland I also received a telephone call from Mr. E. F. W. Besly, Legal Counselor of the British Embassy, who said that orders had been received from the Foreign Office in London authorizing the Embassy to take the matter up informally with the Egyptian Government, pointing out that a bill of such a sweeping nature as that under consideration was hardly compatible with the principles of modern legislation, and to express the hope that action on the bill would not be pressed. The Foreign Office had specifically enjoined the Embassy, however, against basing opposition to the bill on any provision of the Montreux Convention. Acting under these instructions Mr. W. A. Smart, Oriental Secretary of the British Embassy, called upon Aly Maher Pasha, the Prime Minister, and expressed the hope that action on the bill would not be pressed. According to Mr. Besly, Mr. Smart received the impression that his remarks had fallen on unreceptive ears, but it seemed a possibly encouraging sign that action on the bill had been postponed if only for a week when it had come up before the Senate. Mr. Besly said that the Embassy had been instructed by the Foreign Office to advise the Legation of the attitude of the British Government in this matter.
In conclusion, it may be said that after due consideration of this matter the Legation is inclined to the belief that its intervention with the Egyptian authorities in this connection would be inopportune since no sufficient legal ground is perceived upon the basis of which representations could be made and in so far as the possibility of an informal approach is concerned such action has already been taken by the British Embassy which, in view of its special relations with the Egyptian Government, is in a position to make such an informal approach more efficaciously than could be done by the Legation. It might, of course, be argued that informal representations by the Legation in support of the Embassy’s intervention might be helpful but I am inclined to the belief that the contrary might in fact be the case since the Egyptian authorities might thereby gain the impression that they were being subjected to pressure tactics. Under the circumstances and unless otherwise instructed by the Department, the Legation does not propose taking up this question with the Egyptian Government at this time. However, should other facts emerge which would seem to justify revision of this decision, such facts will be reported to the Department and its instructions requested.
Respectfully yours,
- Convention for the abolition of capitulations in Egypt signed at Montreux May 8, 1937; for text, see Department of State Treaty Series No. 939, or 53 Stat. 1645.↩