EGYPTIAN GREEN BOOK EXPOSES WAR DESIGNS Britain wants to use Egypt as a base for war against Soviet By SAM RUSSELL LONDON A sensational exposure of the British government’s plan to use Egypt as a base for war against the Soviet Union is contained in a document which has just reach- ed Britain. { ; It is the Egyptian government’s Green Book, which I examined recently at the Egyptian em- bassy in London. z The Green Book gives a ver- batim account of discussions which took place at Cairo in June 1950 between Field-Marshal Sir William Slim, chief of the Im- perial General Staff, and leaders of the Egyptian government fheaded by Nashas Pasha, then premier. ; Although the British govern- ment last year issued a White Paper on Anglo-Egyptian nego- tiations it suppressed any ac- count of the Slim-Nahas talks. Field-Marshal Slim went to Egypt following a suggestion by the late British foreign minister, Ernest Bevin, that such a visit would be “the most helpful con- tribution to the achievement of mutual confidence and trust” be- tween the two governments. Fearing disclosure of the Brit- - ish government’s real aims, Bevin asked that the discussions be held “with the minimum of pub- licity.” After a preliminary meeting with Salah Eddin Pasha, at that time Egyptian foreign minister, Field-Marshal Slim accompanied by the British minister in Cairo, Chapman Andrews, met Nahas Pasha on June 5, 1950. The British minister opened by saying that Field-Marshal Slim . wanted to explain the world mili- tary situation as he saw it, and Slim then roundly declared: At some time there must ‘be a. clash between the capitalists and Russia. Slim then claimed that the So- viet Union was preparing forces for an attack on Egypt in the event of war. Britain, he said, had drawn up a “defense” plan in Persia and ‘Turkey. : Nahas Pasha: By which route Union Field-Marshal Slim: The Rus- sian troops will come by way of Iran or Turkey, and can reach Egypt in four months. They will use from 10 to 15 divisions. They can be delayed some time if Tur- key holds out. No nation by itself, whether the United States or the United Kingdom, can defeat Russia. If one of the big countries went to result would be a draw, preparation for another war. If the United States and the United Kingdom will go to war together against Russia, they will win. But it will ‘be a very long war and the Middle East will be devastated and Britain. herself will suffer. .. I look forward to some ar- rangement of defense that would make it clear that the presence of British troops has in no way any meaning of occupation. Their presence is for defense, to meet the international situation. I am sure that the Egyptian military authorities can produce some sort ‘of organization for the mutual in- terest of our two countries, in ‘which we are not dominating. ... Nahas Pasha, in his reply to ‘Field-Marshal Slim, made these points: I can never be convinced or convince the people that the maintenance of a foreign army in peacetime means anything else but a sort of occupation and incomplete sovereignty... . Why should we stand on your side, get ourselves killed, destroy our land and lose our resources, if we do not know for sure that this third time our demands are satisfied? .. . I ‘believe that we can defend ourselves, and think of a sort of cooperation ‘between us which would remove the fears and real- ize immediate and complete evac- uation. ... I would like you to know that no power on earth can convince the Egyptian people that Egypt will ‘be attacked because of ‘herself. What will cause this attack is the presence in-our land of foreign will the Russian troops, come? SISSSSOSSSSSSSSSS ISSO SE POO SOL IOP EPL SSIS. SS ‘ALL NATIONS. DANCE | Saturday, March 15, 8:30 p.m. RUSSIAN PEOPLE’S HALL 600 Campbell Avenue ‘PETE WOLLINSKY’S ORCHESTRA MODERN AND OLD TIME MUSIC ADMISSION 50c PROCEEDS TO CHAMPION war, -like the United States, the], and } FIELD MARSHAL SLIM His argument: “We, the Brit- ish, have accepted the presence of American troops in Britain.” troops which will ‘be the target for Russian: aggression. . At this juncture Chapman An- drews.seems to ‘have thought that some even stronger language was called for and declared: “You have to jchoose between safety and ruin,” ‘ Nahas Pasha told the British spokesman tiiat he had heard all this before and that only com- plete evacuation of British troops from Egypt would satisfy the Egyptian people. _ Field-Marshal Slim: It will be very difficult to advise my gov- ernment to accept complete evac- uation. I do not think you can Gefend yourselves. If the British troops withdraw from Egypt, it will have a disas- trous effect on the cold war against Russia. Arab countries, Turkey, Iran-and the Dominions will be horrified. Our allies in America will think we have de- serted them. Nahas Pasha ‘pointed out that apart from many other promises to evacuate Egypt, Bevin had promised Sidky Pasha in 1946 that there would be complete evacuation ‘by September; 1949. Nahas Pasha: How can I say otherwise to the people now? Field-Marshal Slim: We ad- vance in our conceptions of de- fense. Kee key ke The following day, on June 6, 1950, another meeting took place at which, apart from’ Nahas Pasha and Field-Marshal Slim the Egyptian foreign . minister and war minister, and Chapman Andrews, British minister in Cairo, were also present. Nahas Pasha pointed out that countries like Turkey and Persia which were supposed to be threatened with the danger of direct invasion by ‘Russia, were not occupied, and he saw no rea- son why Egypt should be. “Tt will always “be possible to say,” he added, “that there exists a danger of war from one of the big powers. Therefore, Egyptians cannot accept the occupation of their country ‘because of such an argument.” Field-Marshal Slim complained that Nahas Pasha “kept on speak- ing of the termination of British occupation when we are speaking of cooperation and not of occupa | — tion.” “That is what you say,” Nahas | Pasha retorted. “But the people | regard it as occupation, ‘because of the circumstances which I have explained.” Chapman Andrews became Ai very agitated, asking the EgyP tian minister whether the Egy? | tian ‘people realized the dange! | confronting them. q Salah Eddin Pasha: The people | regard British occupation as 4 standing fact; but the other dan 7 ger is only a mere threat. They cannot be convinced that occup? tion should remain to repel that danger. Chapman Andrews: Do they realize that the danger of Russia? occupation is worse than British occupation? Bee Salah Eddin Pasha: It is very — difficult to convince people 9 ‘that. ae Chapman Andrews: The war 5 closer this time than in 1936. Field-Marshal Slim tried to im press on the Egyptian ministers | that Egypt could not be neutral | and claimed that as the British government had accepted foreig? — ' troops, Egypt must do the same “We, the British,’ ‘he declared — “have accepted the presence % American troops in England and 7 American bases in London.” But the Egyptian ministers — would not accept this argumenb | Nahas Pasha maintaining that | the Egyptian government consl® ered “complete evacuation as 4 basis for any understanding b& tween Britain and Egypt.” 7 \ And the U.S. government, ap- parently so eager to ward off agigression, does not answer a question Burma’s delegate, U Myint Thein, put to it on Jan- uary 28. t “T am heartened by the state- ments of the representatives of the U.S. and the United Kingdom and France made today that Communist aggression in South- east Asia will not ‘be tolerated,” said Thein, “but I hope that their assurance is not only in respect of ‘Communist aggres- sion, and that it would cover any agression from whatever sources it would ‘come.’ “At the moment we are facing Kuomintang algigression in the eastern portion of Burma,” said Thein. But there were no head- lines on this sensational charge. “Would the government of the U.S. and France persuade their Kuomintang friends to leave our country and stop bothering us?” Thein asked. There was no response, — There is aggression, says Bur- ma. It does not come ‘from Peo- But the strange thing is that when ng merc By JOSEPH STAROBIN Danger of aggression in Burma comes from Kuominta enaries PARIS | Is there danger of agression in Burma? Will this be the cockpit of a third world war? i Everybody has been talking this way for at least a month all over the world. Be ‘the Burmese delegate to the United Nations supplies the = key information ‘to these queries, the American and Canadian press does not seem to get arouse | ple’s China — “I would say that they (People’s China) have ‘been very correct in gees attitude,” said Thein. at ‘ It comes from Chiang Kai- shek’s Kuomintang, whose Gen- eral Li Mi-was sent from Taiwan (Formosa) to lead a band of Kuomintang soldiers for the pur- pose of harassing People’s China. In April, 1951, said the Bur- mese delegate, these Kuomintang ‘bands attempted to raid the Chin- ese frontiers, and, were repulsed. dits ‘have been harassing the Bur- mese people—“killing our men, looting. our grain and raping our women.” The “cloak and dagger” boys in Washington, inspired by the idea of using the remnant Kuo- mintang cannon-fodder to set off. an explosion in Southeast Asia, are evidently at it. The inspiration for this 5OSi intervention comes from the of- ficial policy of recognizing the Kuomintang clique, the official policy of refusing to make peace with People’s China, the official Since ‘then the Kuomintang ban. | PACIFIC TRIBUNE — MARCH 14, 1952 — paGE ? policy of some day overthrowin® | its regime, as John Foster Du fi made so plain to the U.S. Senalé Foreign Relations Committee in - connection with the Japanes? | treaty. pee Such is Burma’s charge. ue was even more sensational tha” | the UN debate which wound UF State Department — on wheth@ | the Chinese-Soviet treaty of 1949 had been “violated” by the soviet Union. This charge was wate!) | ed down; the word “violated - was erased, and made “failed © | carry out.” Ae Even so, the vote was only an | to 9 in favor, with 25 natio™® abstaining. a7 But the answer to Burma’ | questions has not yet bee? — heard. The aggression come? on from Chiang Kai-shek. Wi! — the U.S. abandon that puppet’ if schemes? Or will it continU® — to support them and thus ?? | branded partner, if not instig” | tor, of its adventures? with another defeat for the US |