The second part of Chattopadhaya’s look at the Wafd Party in Egypt and its relationship to the British Empire and the national liberation movements.

‘British Imperialism and Egyptian Nationalism’ by Virendranath Chattopadhyaya from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 10. No. 35. July 31, 1930.

MacDonald declared in the House of Commons on July 16th that the British Government would remain strictly neutral in the struggle between the Wafd and the Monarchy on the question of the change of the electoral law, and he forthwith emphasised that strict neutrality by ordering warships to proceed to Alexandria. There is nothing new in this action by the Labour Government, which is merely repeating what it did during its first term of office in 1924, when a similar deadlock arose between Zaghlul Pasha and British imperialism. In the middle of August 1924 troops of Malta were ordered to be in readiness to proceed to Egypt. the cruiser “Weymouth” and the sloop “Clematis” were sent to Port Sudan, and the Battleship “Marlborough” to Alexandria. Zaghlul and the Egyptian nationalists, representing the growing demands of native capitalism, committed the mistake of believing that they would have their claims satisfied by a British “Labour” Government, but after fruitless negotiations lasting 2 weeks between Zaghlul and MacDonald, it became quite clear to the former that the Labour Party was merely the protector of imperialist interests. And the Labour Government itself left no doubt whatsoever as to its real role as an agent of imperialism. Lord Parmoor declared on behalf of the Labour Government in the House of Lords in June 1924 that “there was no going back, at this stage, on the policy towards Egypt itself, which has been adopted for a considerable time and by Successive Governments”. And in his dispatch of October 7th, 1924, to the British High Commissioner in Egypt, MacDonald used the same imperialist language as his Tory predecessors had used, for he declared that the British Government had “concentrated heavy moral obligations by the creation of a good system of administration”, and that they “regard their responsibilities as a trust for the Sudan people” etc. etc.!

Zaghlul’s successor Nahas Pasha also came to the same MacDonald in 1930 in the same belief that he could come to terms this time, but found the Labour Government more imperialist than ever. But both the Wafd and the Labour Government are anxious to come to terms, and the anti-imperialist demonstrations of the one and the warships of the other are the instruments that are being used for the attainment of a compromise. The methods of the two to achieve this are interesting. The vassal King Fuad has always faithfully carried out the instructions of the British Government and in dissolving Parliament and appointing Sidky Pasha to rule dictatorially, as he did with Mahmoud Pasha in 1928, he hoped to force through the treaty on terms acceptable to British imperialism. But the Labour Government knows that no treaty is of any value that has not today the support of the Waid leaders, and it therefore publicly recognises both the existing Cabinet as well as Nahas Pasha. This is proved by the instructions issued to Sir Percy Loraine, the British High Commissioner, to inform both Sidky Pasha, the Premier, and Nahas Pasha, the anti-Government leader, that they would both be held responsible for loss of European lives. The British Government would not dare to act in this manner in any other country, but it is playing a double game in Egypt, as the Wafdist leaders themselves are playing. British warships are sent to support the Egyptian Government in suppressing the “riots”, i.e. the anti-imperialist movement, but recognition is given to the leader of the latter at the same time. And as for the Wafd leaders, they have launched a movement against the Government with the slogan of national independence, but important Waid leaders belonging to the Senate and the Chamber, like Makram Ebeid, are participating in the Interparliamentary Union in London and carrying on unofficial negotiations with the MacDonald Government, while the Egyptian masses are stoning policemen and destroying Government buildings in Cairo and Alexandria.

And in the triangular contest that is taking place between British imperialism, the Egyptian feudal monarchy and Egyptian capitalism on the backs of the exploited and discontented peasants and workers, we find the paradoxical position that Sidky Pasha stands for Egyptian independence by telling MacDonald that British warships are not wanted and are against Egypt’s sovereign rights, while Nahas Pasha, whose Party stands for independence, thanks the Labour Government for its neutrality!

The daily Press has published as detailed reports as could be obtained regarding the violence of the mass outbreaks, especially in Cairo and Alexandria. When it was made known that the Wafdist Senators and Deputies intended to force their way into the Parliament buildings on July 21st and hold a session in spite of the closing of Parliament by the King, the streets became the scene of mass demonstrations that were fired upon by the police and the troops, resulting in a very considerable number of persons being killed, wounded or arrested. But what did the leaders themselves do? They sent a petition to the King asking him to call an emergency meeting of Parliament on Saturday the 26th July, and they therefore abandoned the plan of forcing their way into Parliament House, and remained indoors all day! They had probably hoped that the mass demonstrations would force the King to act “constitutionally”, especially as the leaders kept away, but King Fuad has declined to consider their petition which pointed out that the Cabinet “has resolved to undertake legis- lative work of the highest importance, notably a modification of the electoral law…about which it has no right to legis- late in the name of the nation”.

While the King was advised by his Minister Sidky Pasha to refuse the Wafdist petition, Sidky Pasha has issued a bulletin in which it declares:

“I am glad to say that all parts of Egypt, from Alexandria to Aswan, have been quiet, with the exception of Cairo, Port Said and Suez, where there have been demonstrations composed of the lowest members of Society”. In these contemptuous words, the Government refers to the historic events in Suez and Port Said, where the working masses were in possession of the towns for some time. In both places, the transport workers are well organised and have often taken active part in anti-imperialist conflicts, and notably in the First of May demonstrations. As was to be expected, they were fired upon by the troops and some deaths are reported.

But it is a significant fact that all the towns where conflicts and street fighting have taken place, like Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and Port Said, are centres where the masses are brought into daily direct contact with British imperialist domination, and where there are worker’s unions that are becoming increasingly class-conscious and participating in the struggle against capitalist-imperialist exploitation.

The peasants have not yet begun to move, although it was reported that on July 21st the fellaheen in the environs of Cairo were planning a march upon the capital, which was prevented by the Government opening the sluices of the Nile. But the economic position in connection with the new cotton crop is expected to create a crisis, as the Government will not be in a position, as it has hitherto done, to bolster up cotton prices by heavy purchases, considering that it already has 2,500,000 kantars of cotton on its hands on which the Nahas Cabinet spent £13 Millions out of the Reserve Fund and which can only be sold at a considerable loss owing to the falling cotton prices on the world market. The discontent of the peasants is, therefore, bound to become acute in the autumn, and a revolutionary situation may arise that may give enormous strength to the anti-imperialist movement.

The Communist Party of Egypt has just issued a manifesto exposing the tactics of the Nationalist parties and calling upon the peasants and workers to unite and overthrow imperialism and capitalism.

Notwithstanding years of persecution the Communist Party has gained ground, and the objective situation in Egypt is very favourable to the development of the anti-imperialist movement under Communist leadership.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecorr” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecorr’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly.

PDF of full issue: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uva.x002548276?urlappend=%3Bseq=665%3Bownerid=27021597768315325-755