§ Captain Waterhouse(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take in view of the statement by General Neguib contradicting the assurance given to this House that on attaining independence the Sudan would be free to seek an association with the British Commonwealth if she so desired.
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden)My statement in reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend on 12th February stands. Her Majesty's Government hold that "complete independence" includes the right of the Sudanese to choose any form of association with any other State on their achieving self-determination. Complete independence clearly could not prevent the Sudan from seeking any association with the CommonweaIth or any other arrangements it wished which are in accord with such independence.
§ Mr. PagetSince it would appear that the Egyptians understand one thing by this Treaty, and the right hon. Gentleman another, is it not desirable that this difference should be cleared up before the Treaty is ratified?
§ Mr. EdenOn 9th January Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to explain to the Egyptian Government that we understood "complete independence" to include the right of the Sudanese to choose any form of association with any other State on their achieving independence. So our position was made plain as long ago as 9th January.
§ Captain WaterhouseDoes not General Neguib's statement since signing this Agreement make it abundantly clear that the object is not to allow the Sudanese to have self-determination and independence but to place them under the heel of Egypt? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman if these repeated statements do not make it quite impossible to accept the word or the signature of the Egyptians, and if this continues would it not be to the advantage of the Sudanese to send the Egyptians out of the Sudan by accepting their denunciation of Condominium?
§ Mr. EdenGeneral Neguib's first statement after the Agreement was signed was that he hoped that this would be the beginning of a new era both between Egypt and the Sudan and Egypt and Her Majesty's Government. I certainly most warmly reciprocate that sentiment, but if it is to be carried out there will certainly have to be an increasing measure of restraint on all sides.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonI agree with the Foreign Secretary that the words "complete independence" are not inconsistent in themselves with association with the British Commonwealth. After all, the British Commonwealth countries are independent although members of the Commonwealth. But it would be a pity if there were any misunderstanding between us and the Egyptians on this matter. Could the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the interpretation of the words in the sense that he has indicated are consistent with the way in which they are understood by the Government of Egypt, namely, that they recognise that the Sudanese are free to be associated with Egypt, free to be independent outside the British Commonwealth. or free to be independent inside the British Commonwealth?
§ Mr. EdenWhat I said was that on 9th January we gave our interpretation of these words "complete independence" and we stated we understood them to include the right of the Sudanese to choose any form of association with any other State on achieving their independence. That was as long ago as 9th January. As regards the Commonwealth, what has been said about it is, I think, in large measure due to the fact that many countries do not seem to understand that the Commonwealth is, in fact, a partnership of completely independent nations and that nobody can join it except as a result of consultation with, and acceptance by, those who are in it already.
Mr. McNeilI am sure everyone sympathises with the right hon. Gentleman and everyone knows what Her Majesty's Government said on 9th January. The first point I want to put is to ask the right hon. Gentleman, not what was said by Her Majesty's Government, but does General Neguib and his Administration now accept that interpretation? 1069 Secondly, if they do not accept that interpretation will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that no further negotiations will take place until that interpretation is accepted?
§ Mr. EdenIt is perfectly clear that we have made plain our position, and I have made it plain once again to the House this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) shakes his head. I have made plain my position this afternoon so far as the English language can mean anything at all. I also made it plain on 9th January. By that position we stand, and that position I am not prepared to vary. I cannot say what the comments of any other Government will be on what I have said this afternoon until they have been made, but I can say that what we have said in the negotiations, what I have said to my right hon. Friend and what I have said now, are precisely and exactly the same.
§ Mr. J. AmeryIn view of the fact that General Neguib's statement was broadcast to the Sudanese, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that what he said on Thursday last and again today will also be broadcast so that no misapprehension will be left in the minds of the Sudanese people?
§ Mr. NallyWould the Foreign Secretary emphasise the point that has already been made, that the decision whether or not to join the Commonwealth is entirely a decision for an independent Sudanese Government to take at some time approximately three years from now, and will he further make it plain that neither he nor the Egyptian Government are capable of entering into an agreement that binds an independent Sudanese Government, subject to Sudanese opinion and acting under its own authority to make whatever decision it likes at a time approximately within the three years limit?
§ Mr. EdenIt seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has very clearly stated the position. This is a decision not only to associate itself with anyone in any way; but it might be that the Sudan three years from now might want to make a 1070 treaty or take any other action. Once self-determination has taken place, it is entirely a matter for the Sudanese Government
Mr. McNeilI am sure that no one wants to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman or impede the movement which has been started in the Sudan; but does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is little likelihood of regular progression unless the two Governments concerned understand each other precisely? Will he therefore tell us whether, when he made his interpretation on 9th January, it was accepted by the other Condominium Power?
§ Mr. EdenI know that the explanation was given by Her Majesty's Ambassador, and I know also that as a result of it there was a change made in the text itself. The text of this particular clause originally ran that the alternative included a Sudan
completely independent of the United Kingdom, Egypt or any other country.That interpretation will be found in the White Paper which I am laying now.We did not like those words, because we thought that "completely independent of the United Kingdom" might be understood to mean that some later arrangement could not be made with the Commonwealth, so most of those words were taken out. The words finally stand:
completely independent,without any mention of any country. I think that shows clearly that we made our point completely frankly.
§ Captain WaterhouseMention has been made of "three years," as if three years were a safe period. Is it not a fact that under this agreement the Sudanese could technically, as soon as the elections were finished, give three months' notice to proceed to a Statute of Independence? Might not the whole thing be telescoped into one year, or even less?
§ Mr. EdenThat would be subject to the process of Sudanisation. Nothing is less likely, if the Sudan wants to keep, as I am sure it does, its national unity in this matter. All parties in the Sudan realise that such a time-table is not realisable.