ETHIOPIA, ERITREA AND SOMALILAND

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Ethiopia, the first victim of aggression by the Axis Powers, is again an independent state. Liberated from the Italian tyrant, she is now our partner and ally, a member of the United Nations. How is her recovered freedom to be assured and made real? In particular, what should be done at the Peace Settlement about her frontiers and her access to the sea?

These questions concern all the United Nations; especially they concern the British Commonwealth whose forces, with the Ethiopian patriots, played the major part in driving out the invaders. It is important that the British public should realise the principles at stake in the treatment of Ethiopia by us and the United Nations. The African peoples, perhaps, because they are innocent, or as an English writer called them “Blameless,” believe in the promises of the Atlantic Charter and the other Evangels of the new order; and are watchful for their application in their continent.

Ethiopia’s Progress Since 1941

On May the 5th, 1941, the fifth anniversary of his expulsion, the Emperor Haile Selassii re-entered his capital of Addis Ababa with detachments of the British Forces and with the patriot bands of his people. The Italian hosts had been routed; and in less than a year after she entered the war by stabbing France in the back, Italy’s ramshackle East-African Empire had been destroyed. Since early in 1942, the Emperor has been recognised again as the sovereign ruler of his people, and his country has been admitted to membership of the United Nations. He has had the help of British Advisers, and during three years some British financial aid. The order of his country had suffered grievously from Italy’s policy which aimed at turning the Ethiopians into helots. Most of the young men who had been trained in Europe or America, before the Italian invasion, to be modern administrators were massacred; and he had to start again to build up an enlightened group of governors and civil servants.

Much has been done during the past four years for the advancement of order and law in the country, for the improvement of its agricultural pro­duction, for the starting of industries, for education and social services. Besides the British officials, British non-officials, notably teachers of the British Council and Christian Missions, and doctors and social workers of the Friends’ Ambulance Unit and a few American teachers, are playing a part in this reconstruction. The Emperor has had also the help of the United States Government, which has supplied—or promised to supply—him with four aeroplanes for internal communication, and with silver for the coinage of dollars, in accordance with a Lease-Lend agreement.

A British Military Mission, carrying on the work which the late Major ­General Orde Wingate initiated during the war of liberation, organises the training of the Ethiopian Army which, for a time, must be the principal instrument for maintaining law and order. A High Court and a permanent independent judiciary, with a few British judges to guide it, are establishing a system of justice, which endeavours to assure the rule of law for natives and foreigners alike.

Ethiopia’s Vital Need : Access to Sea

Much then has been accomplished, even in the stress of war conditions, to modernise the country, and to restore freedom to a proud and upstanding people who have for 2,000 years preserved their independence, first against the attacks of the Moslem invaders, Arabs, Moors and Turks, and then, during the last century, against the imperialist European Powers. But one vital need of Ethiopia, for her rehabilitation and the completion of her independence and stability, is the gaining of access to the sea. In her high mountain plateau she has been cut off from the coastal province along the Red Sea, which was part of the Christian Ethiopian Kingdom for many centuries. Like other nations, she cannot be master of her fate, or make her contribution to a co-operative international order, unless she has assured access to the outside world.

The Portuguese explorers who in the 15th century first re-discovered Ethiopia—then identified with the country of mythical Prester John— and the British emissaries who again opened up communication with the land in the last century, equally recognised this need of Ethiopia. But during the European imperialist scramble for Africa in the 19th century, Ethiopia was treated as a pawn in the game of securing ports on the way to the East; she was deprived of that vital approach to the sea, isolated more and more completely from the outer world, and thrust back on herself. Great Britain, France and Italy between them occupied all the coastal lands of North-East Africa, and the Italians used the coast as a base for repeated aggressions. A French company, as is explained later, built a railway to connect Ethiopia with the French port of Jibuti; but the events of the war of  the French directors of the line refused to carry munitions imported by the Ethiopian Government for defence against the aggressor, proved how precarious was the position of a country dependent for her life-line on a foreign-owned railway.

It is certain, then, that a primary claim of Ethiopia at die Peace Settlement will be to recover a coastal area and ports. She will make her claim in regard both to Eritrea, the former Italian colony along the southern shore of the Red Sea, and to what was Italian Somalia, of which the ports are die natural outlet of the southern part of the Ethiopian Empire. The Italian colonics have been occupied and administered since 1941 by the British Forces ; their destiny will be settled by the United Nations, of whom Ethiopia herself is a member. A settlement must not be made without her participation, or without due consideration of her rights and interests.

What are the essential facts about these territories, their history in modern times, dieir relation to Ethiopia ? What would be the best solution in order to give effect to the principles of the Atlantic Charter, namely:— “The establishment of a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries ”; and “ the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access on equal terms to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity ? ”

Previous British. Offers of Ports

It is notable that, when the storm was blowing up between Italy and Ethiopia, British statesmen recognised the just claim of Ethiopia for a port of her own. In the tangled negotiations of the Great Powers before the outbreak of war in 1935, our Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, made the sugges­tion that Great Britain should cede to Ethiopia the port of Zeila in British Somaliland and a corridor to the sea. But France and Italy, which had their economic stranglehold on Ethiopia through the ports of Jibuti, Massowa and Assab on the Red Sea, objected, and a party in England cried out against handing over British territory. Nothing came of the proposal. Some months later, after the war had broken out and the Ethiopians were battling valiantly but desperately with the invaders, and the economic sanctions of the League against the aggressor were being half-heartedly applied, another British Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoarc, and the French Foreign Minister, M. Laval, made an unconscionable proposal for a compromise with Italy. The invader should receive a large part of the provinces of Ethiopia which bordered on his colonies of Eritrea and Somalia, but in return would cede the port of Assab and a narrow corridor to the sea, what The Times called “ a corridor for camels.” That proposal, too, came to nought. But it implied the recognition that her own approach to the sea was Vital to Ethiopia.

 

HISTORY

To understand Ethiopia’s claim we have to look far back into the history of the Ethiopian people and their neighbours. The Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia dated back to the 5th century of our era; and included for long historic periods coastal areas on the western shore of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. The ancient port on the Red Sea was Adulis, a few miles south of the modern Massowa. In the 7th century .North Africa was overrun by Arab conquerors who brought with them the religion of Islam; but the Ethiopians in their mountain fastnesses successfully preserved a land­locked isle of Christendom. The ports on the Red Sea were from time to time occupied by the Arabs, descending from the other side of the sea, much as the Danes at that period descended upon the coast of Britain. Arabs, or Moors, as they were called later, settled in the coastal belt, and gave to the country the name “Abyssinia,” which is an Arabic word meaning a medley of peoples. In antiquity and in the Middle Ages, Ethiopia was closely bound up with Arabia and the Semitic peoples, by ethnic elements, religion and languages. It belonged as much to Western Asia as to Central Africa. The Moslem occupation of the strong places on the coast of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean broke that political connection for centuries. But the linguistic and cultural links remained; and the people cherished the ancient tradition which tells of the dispersion of the tribes of Israel to Ethiopia. The rulers of the country claim lineage from King Solomon, and through the ages have proudly held the title “Lion of Judah.”

The Coming of the Portuguese : 1487-1650

The Christian princes of Europe in their fight against Islam, after the failure of the Crusades, dreamed of alliances with the Christian King, whom they knew as Prester John, and finally located in Ethiopia. It was not, however, till the 15th century, when the Moors were driven from their last foothold in Spain and Portugal, and when bold explorers from those countries, seeking a new way to the Indies, had circumnavigated Africa, that diplomatic relations were established with Ethiopia. The first envoy admitted was sent by King John II of Portugal, m 1487. Later the Portuguese despatched a mission to the country. The Turks had by that time prevailed over the Christians in south-eastern Europe and captured Constantinople. The Portuguese aimed in retaliation to drive the Moslems out of Africa. A Jesuit Esther, Francis Alvarez, who accompanied the Portuguese embassy, stayed in Ethiopia for seven years (1520-27), and wrote a full record for his King.

The Moors occupied an island off the coast, the present Massowa; “but the mainland,” Alvarez wrote, “belongs to Prester John.” He describes the countries adjoining the kingdom of Prester John and vassals of it; among them were the kingdom of the Danakil, “ of which the seaport is named Belu behind the gates of the Red Sea; and the kingdom of Adel which is sovereign over Zeila and Berbera”—(the ports on the Indian Ocean of what is today British Somaliland). The embassy brought a request that the King of Portugal should be permitted to build forts and churches in Massowa and Suakin, ports on the Red Sea. Prester John, who ruled over the coastal lands through his feudal vassal, gave his consent, and added: “After you have done this in Massowa, conic to Zeila, and make there a church and a castle. The town of Zeila is a port of much provision for Aden and all parts of Arabia.”

A few years after Alvarez left the country, the King of Portugal was besought by the King of Ethiopia to come to his aid against the Turks who had been invited by rebels to invade the country from the South. A Portuguese expedition came under Stephen de Gama, a descendant of the famous navigator who sailed round Africa; and 400 men of arms landed and drove back the infidels. For a century Portuguese Jesuit fathers, who sought to convert the people to the Roman Church, were attached to the Ethiopian Court, and several wrote descriptions of the land. One of these records, by Count Ludolphus, who wrote in the early part of the 17th century, tells that the Kingdom of Tigre included, “ as its most noble part,” a province of the Red Sea which bore the Arabic name for Sea, “ Bahr.”

The Turks established themselves on the island of Massowa; but the Ethiopian kings still kept control over the larger part of the coastal lands.

First British Expeditions

In the latter part of the I8th century British explorers began to take a part in the discovery of Central Africa and showed an active interest in Ethiopia. Portuguese chronicles about the country had, indeed, been rendered into English in the 17th century; and the great Doctor Johnson translated from the French a version of one of those chronicles, written by a Jesuit Father. That early work no doubt inspired him to place the scene of his philosophical novel, “Rasselas, the Prince of Ethiopia,” in the mystery country. The first British traveller in the land, however, was James Bruce, who had explored the countries of North Africa and who had the ambition to discover the source of the river Nile. He wrote a record of his years in the land (1768-1772), describing vividly his searches for the springs of the river, that brought him to Lake Tana, through which the Blue Nile flows, and giving an account of the natural and political history. And he sought to engage the interest of his country in the land which, because of its proximity to the Indian Ocean, had an importance for the Empire that was being created in India. He failed in that endeavour; but at the beginning of the 19th century the first official British Mission went from India during the wars with Napoleon. The immediate motive for sending it was an appre­hension that the French would attempt to secure Egypt in a division of the Turkish Empire with Russia. The head of the Mission was Lord Valentia, who persuaded the Marquess of Wellesley, Captain-General of the British Forces in India, to give him a cruiser for the purpose of “surveying the Eastern shores of Africa and making inquiries into the present state of Abyssinia.”

Valentia wrote the story of his expedition, and included in it the narrative of Mr. Salt, who explored the interior of the country. “The direct communication,” he wrote, “between Abyssinia and other Christian countries may be considered as again opened by the visit of Mr. Salt to Tigre, after having been closed since 1588, when Suliman Pasha (the Turkish Sultan) conquered Massowa and Suakin, and deprived Abyssinia of its access to the Red Sea”. He urged the establishment of a British Legation in Ethiopia, and the placing under British protection of a port on the Western coast of the Red Sea. Mr. Salt, who was sent in 1809 to carry a letter from the King of England to the King of Ethiopia, published an account of that second expedition. He repeated the proposal to remove the obstruction which interrupted communication with Ethiopia, by establishing for her a port which would facilitate intercourse with the British settlements in the East.

First British Treaty

The British Government did not act on the advice, but chose Aden, on the East side of the Red Sea, which commanded the entrance to the Indian Ocean, as their port of call, and later, their coaling station. The first British treaty with Ethiopia was made in 1841. It was a treaty of Friendship and Commerce j and one of the articles declared that the contracting parties would endeavour to keep open and secure the avenues of approach between the coast and Abyssinia. Eight years later a treaty in similar terms was made with Sahali Selassie, the King of Ethiopia. The British Envoy was Walter Chichele Plowden, who was appointed, in 1848, first British Consul to Ethiopia and was stationed at Massowa. The map in the book written by him shows the Northern provinces of Abyssinia stretching to the sea. So do other maps of the period.

Egyptian and European Occupation of the Coast

As the power of the Ottoman Empire declined, the Pasha of Egypt, or Khedive, who had beeome virtually independent of his suzerain, the Sultan of Turkey, took control of the Sudan and its Red Sea ports including Massowa. In 1865 a decree (Firman) of the Sultan conferred the government of the Sudan Province on the Khedive; and the Egyptian rulers for a time exercised a control from Suez to the Indian Ocean. Great Britain herself, because of her concern for the passage to India, began to be interested in the Southern stretches of the coast which were inhabited by the fierce Moslem Somalis. Already in 1840, the East India Company had made an agreement with the Somali Governor of Zeila to cede an island off the coast for a harbour. Gradually the British Government established a protectorate over stretches of the Somali territory. The competition between the European powers for the control of the East African coast had begun.

The purpose of occupation was primarily to obtain stations for ships on their way to tlie Indies and the Far East. France entered the competition, and established her protection over the chiefs of Obok, then by purchase and persuasion extended her territory, acquired Jibuti as a place of call, and parcelled out the small and arid colony of French Somaliland.

Italy’s Entry

These steps provoked Italy, who, after the attainment of unity in Europe, was anxious to show herself a power in Africa. Italian relations with Ethiopia started in 1859, with a treaty of commerce between the King of Sardinia and the King of Ethiopia. In 1861, a local chieftain, the Sultan of Assab, which was then a small fishing port in the torrid coast of the. Danakils, sold an area of land to a private Italian subject; and ten years later the chieftain of the Danakil tribes ceded to an Italian shipping company an island and a small area on the mainland. In 1883, the cession was con­firmed to the Italian Government, who had bought out the Company, and was approved by the King of Shoa. A treaty of Peace and Friendship , between the King of Italy and the King of Shoa declared their desire to establish commercial intercourse between the States of Shoa and the colonies of Assab.

Egyptian-Ethiopian Relations

Meantime the relations between the Egyptian Khedives and the rulers of Ethiopia became embroiled. Imperialism was in the air, and the rulers of Egypt were infected by it. Great Britain, in 1867, had waged a punitive war against King Theodore of Ethiopia, because of his maltreatment of British and other missionaries. Lord Napier stormed his capital of Magdala. Theodore put an end to his life, but Britain had no desire to occupy the country. Ethiopia, however, seemed to be weak and an easy prey, and Egyptian armies invaded her territory. They met their match. The Emperor John who had made himself sovereign of Ethiopia, defeated them, and Great Britain intervened to make peace between the two African States. A few years later the revolt of the Mahdi in the Sudan culminated in the capture of Khartum and the killing of General Gordon, and it was decided that the Egyptian forces should be withdrawn via the coastal area of the Red Sea.

A British Mission was sent in 1884, under Admiral Sir William Hewett, to obtain the help of the Emperor of Ethiopia in evacuating the Egyptian garrisons. A tripartite treaty was made between Great Britain, Egypt and Ethiopia at Adowa. The Emperor John had asked for the restoration of Massowa. That was not conceded, and Massowa was left in Egyptian occupation. But the treaty provided that there should be free transit at that port to and from Ethiopia for all goods, including arms and ammunition, “under British protection.” A second article stated that the hinterland, the country called Bogos, “should be restored to the King of Ethiopia,” and when the troops of the Khedive have left the garrisons of Kassala, etc., the buildings in the country, together with all the stores and munitions of war, should be delivered to and become the property of the King of Ethiopia, who would facilitate the withdrawal of the Egyptian troops to Massowa. The Ethiopian Emperor carried out faithfully his part of the engagement, and he brought away in safety the scattered garrisons in the Sudan. A little later Massowa itself was given up by the Egyptians.

British Desertion of Ethiopia

Then came a transaction which drew a strong protest from those few Englishmen who were concerned at that time with Ethiopia. Among them were Lord Napier, the conqueror of 1867, and Mr. Wylde, British Vice­Consul on the Red Sea coast. When Massowa was evacuated by the Egyptian troops, the British Government assented to the proposal of the Italians to take possession of that port, and to extend the Colony, which they were diligently enlarging, along the shores of the Red Sea. The purpose was to keep out the French, who at that time were our principal rivals in Northern and Central Africa. The British Government did nothing to assure to the Ethiopians permanent possession of the territory of Bogos, which, by the terms of the Treaty, we had recognised as Ethiopian. The proclamation, which was issued by the Italian Admiral, when his forces entered Massowa on the 3rd February, 1885, recites innocently:—“The Italian Government, in accord with the English and Egyptian Governments, and, without doubt, also with the Abyssinian, have ordered us to take possession of the fort of Massowa, and to hoist the Italian flag by the side of the Egyptian. By this occupation our troops will protect you, and we are ready to pay for ail we want. We shall respect your customs and religion. No obstacles shall be put by me to your trade; and I can assure you of the friendship of my Government.”

The British Foreign Secretary had informed the Italian Ambassador in London that the Egyptian Government were unable to continue their hold upon the African littoral of the Red Sea, while we had no right and made no pretensions to give away that which did not belong to us, if the ItalianGovernment should desire to occupy some of the ports in question, it was a matter between Italy and Turkey.” He added that Her Majesty’s Government would raise no objection to the occupation of Zulla and Beilul by Italy,  or of Massowa, subject to the treaty arrangements in force with Abyssinia in regard to that place. The Italians disregarded the condition.

On the principle of little by little the Italians advanced their territory into the neutral area between Massowa and Ethiopia, and then over the frontiers of Ethiopia itself. King John protested, and could not believe that the English Queen had played the part of duplicity. His General, Ras Alula, who had defeated the forces of the Mahdi at Kassala, stood up to the Italians and defeated them.

The British Government sent out an emissary, Mr. Portal, who tried without success to bring about peace between the Italian aggressor and the aggrieved and angry Ethiopians. The letter which King John sent by the Envoy to Queen Victoria has a note of sincerity and dignity; “I have received your letters with reference to making peace with the Italians. In truth I have never committed any offence against you or against the Turks. When the Treaty was signed between me and England and Egypt, it was laid down that no arms were to pass Massowa except with my permission. But they have not complied with the Treaty ... As for the complaints the Italians made that they had been badly treated, the fault was on their side, and they began the quarrel by occupying towns and taking possession of them. I wrote to them, ‘ If you have come with authority from the Queen (of England), show me her signature, or if not, leave the country.’ And they answered me, ‘ No, we will not.’ If you wish to make peace between us, it should be when they are in their country and I in mine.”

Italian Aggression : Eritrea

While John was dealing with the threat from Italy, the forces of the Mahdi invaded his country on the other side. He turned to meet the new . attack and was victorious, but received a mortal wound. In the confusion which followed, the Italians advanced and consolidated their hold, and thus cut off Ethiopia’s access to the coast. Lord Napier, speaking in the House of Lords in 1887, said: “Massowa was really part of Abyssinia, and ought by right to be restored to King John.” But abandoned by England, whom she had regarded as her friend, Ethiopia was compelled to recognise in 1889 the sovereignty of the King of Italy over Eritrea. The treaty provided for consignments of arms to pass freely through Massowa for King Menelik. A few years later Italy renewed her aggression, using Eritrea as a base, occupied Makale, and sought to control the foreign relations of Ethiopia. She met with disaster, however, at Adowa in 1896, and had to enter into a treaty recognising the independence of Ethiopia and providing for the delimitation of the frontiers with Eritrea. It was also stipulated that no cession of the territory of Eritrea should be made by Italy to any other Power.

British Treaty, 1897

The European States were concerned to consolidate their occupations and possessions in Africa, and to fix frontiers with the one independent sovereign State which remained in that continent. In 1897, Great Britain negotiated a fresh treaty with Ethiopia, which defined the frontiers with British Somaliland, and was designed to encourage commerce with the land­locked state through our protectorate. Materials destined for the service of Ethiopia would pass through the port of Zeila free of duty; there would be liberty of commerce for the subjects of both countries ; and the caravan routes would be kept open to their whole extent for the commerce of the two nations.

 

THE EUROPEAN POWERS & SOMALILAND

During the last years of the 19th century, the Italians, with British support, began to build up a colony on the Somali coast, which had been evacuated by the Egyptians. They acquired other areas which had been subject to the control of the Sultan of Zanzibar. Their colony extended to the river Juba. Titus they cut off the last possible access of Ethiopia to the sea. Some years after the First World War, Italian Somalia was enlarged by the British cession of an area beyond the Juba river, with the port of Kismayu which had been hitherto in the British protectorate. It comprised finally 200,000 square miles ; but a large part was desert. The population at the beginning of the war in 1939 was about a million. The attempt, however, to colonize Italians in regions of the Equator had little success. They built one modem city, Mogadishu, round a small Arab fortress and port, and in its population of 50,000 there were 8,000 Italians. They tried also to instal scientific agriculture and to irrigate the area beside the Juba, But the Colony was regarded by the Italian peasants as exile: like Eritrea it was used in the end mainly as a base for invasion.

In our British Protectorate of Somaliland we had to fight, during the twenty years 1901-1920, continual campaigns against the “Mad Mullah” who proclaimed a Holy Moslem war. As in the Italian territory, the bulk of the inhabitants were nomads, and little progress has been made by us in developing agriculture and education. The 350,000 Somalis are reputed to have 1’1/2 million camels, 2’1/2 million sheep, 2 million goats and 300,000 cattle.

While the European Powers were occupying the Somali coast, the Emperor Menelik extended his authority over the Somalis in the Southern part of his realm, and annexed the area of Oguden, establishing a centre of government at the fortress of Jigjiga. The Somali people had thus been cut up between four conquering states; and inevitably there were constant border raids of the tribes who knew no respect for demarcated or undermarcated frontiers. The political frontiers were fictions on the map.

The Franco-Ethiopian Railway

Direct access to the sea being denied to Ethiopia, the Emperor Menelik, anxious to have some way to the coast for export and import, granted to a Swiss engineer, who assigned it to a French Company, a concession for the construction and working of a railway from the port of Jibuti in French Somaliland to Ethiopia. The original concession was granted in 1894, and provided in the first place for a line to Harar in the South-East of his kingdom; with an extension later to the new capital of Addis Ababa. The Emperor was to receive a proportion of the shares in the Company, and to provide the labour for building the line in his territory. Construction was begun from Jibuti, but the French Company were in difficulties before the line had reached the frontier. The French Government of the Colony came to their assistance, and in return for a controlling interest gave a subsidy which enabled the work to proceed. Sir John Harrington, the British Minister to the Emperor Menelik, pointed out the threat to Ethiopian sovereignty which was involved in the control by a foreign government of the railway to his Capital; and a fresh proposal was laid before the three Imperial Powers—Great Britain, France and Italy—for joint responsibility for the railway.

In 1906, however, an agreement was made between the three Powers to adjust their claims in the territory around Ethiopia. The Treaty stated that it was “a common interest to maintain the territorial integrity of Ethiopia,” and then proceeded to define die special position of each in certain areas adjoining the country where they had economic spheres of influence. Great Britain’s interest in the Nile and the areas around the Nile was recognised; France’s interest in the Somali Colony was assured, and the right of the French to construct the railway to Addis Ababa, without participation of the other two Powers, was affirmed. Lastly, the position of Italy in Eritrea and Somalia, and her sphere of interest in both the Northern and Southern parts of Ethiopia were recognised. That was still the position at the end of the First World War, by which time the railway had at last been laid to Addis Ababa. It is nearly 500 miles in length, and all but 70 miles of it are in Ethiopia.

ETHIOPIA AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

The Emperor Menelik died in 1913, but, contrary to expectation, his Empire did not break up. His grandson, Lij Yasu, son of his daughter and a Moslem Ras conquered by him, became in the World-War a tool of German agents, declared himself a Moslem, and tried to rouse the Moslem part of his people to a Holy War against the Italians. That, however, provoked revolt of the Christian Amhara chiefs, and he was deposed and succeeded by Menelik’s daughter. The present Emperor, then known as Ras Taferi, who was one of the leaders of the revolt, became Regent. In 1928, he was advanced to be Negus with the Empress; and when she died in 1930, he was crowned Emperor.

After the League of Nations was formed, it was one of the Regent’s objects to secure the admission of Ethiopia to membership. He was resolved to continue the policy of Menelik in modernising the country. He hoped by admission to the League to secure a guarantee of its independence and integrity, and also to obtain international co-operation for the advancement of his people. His application, which came before die Council of the League in 1923, was supported by France and Italy, though Great Britain at first had some hesitancy, because of the existence of slavery, she withdrew her opposition when the Emperor promised to take steps to abolish slavery; and Ethiopia entered the League.

Two years later, when Great Britain and Italy had entered into fresh arrangements with regard to spheres of influence in Ethiopia, they dealt among other things with British claims concerning the waters of Lake Tana—that was vital for the irrigation of the Sudan—and Italian claims to build a railway through Ethiopian territory, connecting their colonies of Eritrea and Somalia. Ethiopia being then a member of the League, the Emperor lodged a sharp protest to the Council, pointing out that the joint Anglo- Italian representations, based on an agreement made without consulting Ethiopia, threatened her integrity. Throughout their history, he said, the Ethiopians had seldom met with foreigners who did not desire to possess themselves of Ethiopian territory, and destroy their independence. Nevertheless, he undertook not to interfere with the waters of Lake Tana, save with British consent.

Italy at this time pursued a policy of apparent friendship towards her neighbour. In 1928, she made a Treaty of Friendship and Arbitration. The agreement provided also for a free zone for Ethiopian trade in the port of Assab; but that was conditional upon the building of a road from Assab to the Ethiopian town of Dessie. The Ethiopians were to construct the part of the road within their territory, but in fact did not do so, because they feared with reason that the route proposed for the road indicated that it was designed to facilitate invasion.

Ethiopia’s Present Communications with the Coast

Until the Italian occupation of the capital in 1936, the main trade route for Ethiopia continued to be the railway from Jibuti. Although for 2,000 miles territories under British administration, the Sudan, Kenya and British Somaliland, border the territory of Ethiopia, no British port carries any important part of its commerce. The Italians, during their four years of occupation after 1936, carried out large schemes for transforming the com­munications of the country, particularly by motor highways from Eritrea. Altogether, they built 3,000 miles of motor roads, including two arterial ways from Asmara to Addis Ababa. One road passed through the town of Gondar in the West, a distance of 780 miles. The other went in a straighter line from North to South, passing through Dessie. A railway and a ropeway had already linked the port of Massowa with Asmara. Today, then, there is through communication from the coast to the main towns in Ethiopia.

The Italians also connected their colony of Somalia and its capital, Mogadishu, by road with the southern provinces of Ethiopia. They made the three territories one administrative unit of Italian East Africa, divided into five large provinces. Their four years of occupation had in that respect some useful result, in linking Ethiopia with the sea, both in the north and in the south, so far as that depended on road communications. They were indeed anxious to acquire the railway from Addis Ababa to Jibuti, and negotiated with the French colonial administration to that end. Already before the invasion of Ethiopia, they had received through agreement with Laval a holding in the shares of the railway company. The proposal, after the conquest, was that the French should give up part of their colony and their port, and receive in exchange other territory along the coast. But that had not come to anything before Italy declared war on the Allies.

Eritrea in the World War

In the proclamation which the Emperor Haile Salassie issued in July, 1940, to the patriots in Ethiopia, calling on them to join the Allies and fight against the Italians, he addressed his appeal also td the people of Eritrea. “Whether on this side or the other side of the Mareth (the frontier river), join in the struggle at the side of your Ethiopian brothers. Your destiny is strictly bound with that of the rest of Ethiopia.” This proclamation was issued with the knowledge and the sanction of the British Military Authorities. It was an indication that Eritrea was regarded as part of a restored Ethiopia, and would be returned to the Mother Country at the end of the war. Thousands of Eritreans who were with the Italian forces did, in fact, desert to join the Ethiopian patriots.

 

ERITREA : POPULATION, PORTS

Compared with Ethiopia with its 350,000 square miles, Eritrea is a small and poor territory of about 15,000 square miles. Before the Italian preparations for the invasion of Ethiopia in 1934-35, which led them to pour into Eritrea a large army of Italian workers as well as troops, the popula­tion was estimated at 600,000. Of these, only 5,000 were Italians. By 1939, the Italian population had increased to 60,000. In Asmara, the capital, out of 85,000 inhabitants, 50,000 were Italians, and in Massowa out of 17,000, 6,000 were Italians. But most of them had been brought there for the purpose of the war; and the Italians were primarily interested in the development of the territory as a base for war. As the official record of the British Military Administration, published in 1944, put it: “Eritrea was containing, but not supporting, 60,000 civilians in addition to the Armed Forces.”

The striking physical feature of Eritrea is its long coast line of 670 miles. Two modern ports lie along that coast, Massowa and Assab. Massowa, which is a cluster of islands, has been marked as the gateway to Ethiopia ever since the Europeans discovered the Empire of Prester John. The first Portuguese expedition had the task of subjecting those islands to the lordship of Prester John. The head of the Mission reported that “ the island of Massowa has a very fine harbour, and shut in; it is better than that of Cartagena, and has a very good anchorage.” The great Portuguese Captain in the Indies, Albuquerque, at the beginning of the 16th century, marked it as a key position in the Red Sea. His plan was to occupy it, and also Aden, in order to be able to help the Ethiopian King against the Moslems. When the British official Mission explored the coast at the beginning of the 19th century, Lord Valentia made a special examination of Massowa, and urged in vain that the port should be placed under British protection. When Chichele Plowden was appointed British Consul in Ethiopia in 1848, he renewed the advice that Massowa should be assigned to Ethiopia for her port; but again nothing was done.

Italian Settlement

  The coastal plain is fiercely hot, arid, and malarial, but inland beyond the Hat coastal belt, twenty to forty miles wide, the Northern part of the country rises steeply to a plateau of 6,000 to 8,000 feet. Asmara lies on that plateau at a height of7,500 feet. The strong post of Keren is perched in the mountains below Asmara. The Italian colonisation, which in numbers was small, was planted in the cool highlands. The Italians built railways 300 miles in length to connect Massowa with Asmara, and Asmara with Keren and Agordat, which is to the North-West, near the Sudan border. During the present world war the British and American forces established a vast air field and repair depot outside Asmara which, between 1941 and 1943, was an important station on the trans-continental air route from Europe and America to Asia, and may become so again.

 The climate in the highlands is like that of the Ethiopian plateau, and suitable to white settlers. The Italians settled in villages a few thousands of their peasants and some planters on a larger scale, but neither the agricultural production nor the trade of their colony was considerable. For their food supply the inhabitants depended largely on the Northern provinces of Ethiopia. The main export was salt, which was produced in the low lagoons by the coast and was supplied to Ethiopia.

The official record already quoted says : “In this strange city (Asmara) lived 45,000 Italians₃ who could not obtain enough fresh milk for their children and imported their vegetables from Rome, and 100,000 natives, largely crowded into latrineless native quarters, which lacked water even for their unambitious needs.”

Ethnic and Linguistic Ties with Ethiopia

The native people of the greater part of Eritrea are of Semitic race, as are the Amharas of Ethiopia, whilst the peoples of the surrounding territories are known to ethnologists as Hamitic. The kinship of the majority of the people of Eritrea with the inhabitants of northern Ethiopia is unmistakable. The frontier defined by the river Mareth was forced upon Menelik by the risk of war against much larger forces if he did not accept it after his victory at Adowa. It is quite artificial, and has neither economic nor ethnic justification. The people on either side speak the same language, Tigrinya, which is closely related to Amharic, both being derived from die classical language, Geez, as Italian and Spanish are derived from Latin.

Although Italian penetration brought about outward differences between the people under their rule and the neighbouring Ethiopians, all the essential aspects of life, religion, language and traditions were not affected. The Italians did little to educate the subject people, except as clerks ahd for military service. Quoting the official record again: “All instruction was given in Italian. The text-books glorified the Duce on almost every page, and boys were encouraged to become little soldiers of the Duce.” By 1933, they had established only seven native schools in the colony after the Ethiopian war, in pursuance of a policy of Italianisation, they increased the number of schools to twenty-nine, but fewer than 4,000 children were educated in them. They took some steps to introduce teaching of arts and crafts, and opened one secondary school for training teachers and Govern­ment clerks; but their main interest, educationally, was to prepare soldiers u for the Fascist attack on Ethiopia.

Several Ministers of Haile Selassie, both before the Italian invasion and since his restoration, including the present Envoys to the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., were sprung from Eritrea. They felt themselves Ethiopian. Their European education, which they received with the help of the Emperor, and not through the Italians, gave them a modem outlook which they desire to use for the upbuilding of their race. In no sense is there a separate Eritrean people; and it would be contrary to the trend of the political and social order which is promised after the war, and looks to larger economic and political units, to encourage any movement for political separation. In Eritrea itself, which the people know by its Ethiopian name of Hamasen, demonstration have been held in favour of reunion with Ethiopia; and in Addis Ababa an association has been founded with that aim.

The Wishes of the Eritrean People

Recently a discussion on the future of Eritrea has been proceeding in the vernacular papers of the territory which are sponsored by the local office of the British Ministry of Information. Some of those who expressed their opinion arc anxious that Eritrea should be joined to Ethiopia, others wish the British administration to stay, a few wish for an independent country. It is natural that the British administration, which since the conquest three years ago has done much good for the native population, particularly in the educational and health services, and, among other benefits, for the first time has given them a press in their own language, should have won their confidence. But it would be contrary to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and to the declarations of the United Nations, if Great Britain were to maintain in the post-war settlement any control over Eritrea. The booklet, The First to be Freed, which the Ministry of Information issued in 1944, about the administration of the former Italian colonies, very properly makes no suggestion about the future.

 

ETHIOPIA’S CLAIM AND THE ATLANTIC CHARTER

On considerations of international justice as well as of economic geo­graphy, the claim of Ethiopia to recover the coastal province on the Red Sea is overwhelmingly strong. Moreover, to facilitate Ethiopia’s trade with the Middle East and India is in accordance with the principles which for a century governed British relations with Ethiopia, except for the unhappy period of imperialistic aggression. The declarations in the Atlantic Charter quoted above are an express rejection of the principle of inequality, which in. that period dominated European policy in Africa.

A decisive test of loyalty to the new principles will be the action taken in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Ethiopia was the first country in which the outrage‘done to national liberty by the Fascists and the Nazis was righted by the Allies; and in the treatment of Ethiopia’s claim the Allies can give the example of justice and equal treatment to the peoples without distinction of race and creed. After we countenanced Italian aggression at Massowa—I and so laid up trouble for ourselves—King John of Ethiopia pointed out that the Divine retribution, working through the Mahdi, had given the oppor­tunity of restoring to Ethiopia the coastal territory of which she had been deprived by Moslem invaders. We did not heed the entreaty. However, we have outlived that competition of imperialisms, which has been one of the causes of the world catastrophe twice repeated during the last thirty years; and the United Nations have set their seal to a covenant for a new and juster order.

Ethiopia’s Independence

The agreement made between the British Government and the Emperor of Ethiopia in 1942, affirmed the Emperor’s sovereignty over all the territory which formed the Empire before it was conquered and annexed by Italy. It is true that the Military Convention attached to the Agreement reserved temporarily from the Emperor’s jurisdiction the frontier areas contiguous to French and British Somaliland, and the province of Ogaden in the South, which is inhabited largely by Somalis. But that measure was due to the military situation, because of a possibility of renewed invasion by the Axis Powers, both Germany and Japan. In tide later agreement signed at Addis Ababa on December 19th, 1944, a part of the reserved area, the town of Diredawa and the area North-East of the railway, was released; but much the greater part of it, and the Ogaden, are retained under British Military Administration for the minimum period of the agreement, two years, after which they revert to Ethiopian administration.

In order, however, to preserve Ethiopian sovereignty, it is prescribed by letters appended to the agreement that, wherever in the Reserved area and the Ogaden the British flag is flown by the British Military Administration, the Ethiopian flag will be flown beside it. It is prescribed also that mineral and sub-soil rights in the territory belong to die Ethiopian Government, and may be exercised by it.

Three other major Powers of the Allies, the United States, the U.S.S.R., and China, as well as Mexico and New Zealand, never recognised the Italian conquest. Ethiopia, too, has been admitted as one of the United Nations; and we, the United States and the U.S.S.R. have established Legations in Addis Ababa. France, Belgium, Greece and Czechoslovakia also have Ministers there. Ethiopia on her part has appointed Ministers to London, Washington and Moscow. She has remained throughout a member of the League of Nations, and she has taken her part in the conferences of the United Nations about relief and rehabilitation, about food and agriculture, about the monetary system and the International Bank, and finally about a World Organisation.

The United Nations together have to settle the destiny of the territories in Africa which were occupied by Italy, but have been freed from the Fascist yoke. They must take into account that the independence of Ethiopia cannot be truly maintained unless her rulers have control over the maritime province which gives access to the sea and to the outer world, and which in the hands of any other Power might be again a base for invasion. And that means that Eritrea should be joined to her.

Abuses of Italian Rule

Il may be said that the Italians were no more unscrupulous or rapacious in their occupation of Eritrea titan were the English and the French in their occupation of other parts of Africa. But the difference is that the Italians repeatedly used their coastal colonics as bases for attack on Ethiopian independence.

The record of the British administration of Eritrea and Somalia throws indeed a lurid light on aspects of the Italian rule. “The prisons in Eritrea were in a lamentable state. Prisoners were herded in vast, dirty, foul­smelling wards. They slept with no protection but their rags on cement floors, whether in the moist heat of Massowa or the cold of Asmara. They were infested with vermin which carried typhus and other diseases.” And in Somalia “the prisons were in a condition which no British authorities could tolerate.” The 1,500,000 natives had “ a positive hatred for their ex-masters ... and would not willingly submit to the continuation of Italian jurisdiction in any form, either judicial or administrative.” It is unthinkable then that the Italians should be given a fresh opportunity of rule. Their settlement of Italian colonists and their introduction of the mechanical appanages of modem civilisation were part of their programme for building up an empire over North East Africa, and holding it by military force. The material improvements can give no right, in any just system of world settlement, to the restoration of Eritrea to the Italian State, any more than their acts of settling 30,000 Italians in Ethiopia itself and the making of highways, the introduction of electricity and the exploitation by their cor­porations of the natural and mineral resources, give any right. There will be a fair and equitable settlement of the claims of individuals, if their properties held by long possession are taken over by the Ethiopian state. But there can be no question of restoring in Eritrea the Roman imperium.

Possible Courses for Eritrea

Three courses have been suggested for the disposition of Eritrea: (1) it should be annexed by one of the United Nations; (2) it should be administered by a trustee power on the lines of the mandated territories in Africa which were taken from Germany after the last war; or (3) it should be restored to Ethiopia. The first of these courses would be a direct violation of the undertaking in the Atlantic Charter, by which the United Nations declare that they seek no territorial gains; and it cannot be seriously considered. Some adjustment of the frontiers between the Sudan and the former Italian colony, so as to avoid division of the land of border tribes, might at the same time, be desirable. The second course has something more plausible to commend it. It may be urged that the rulers and civil servants of Ethiopia are not yet sufficiently experienced to undertake without supervision the administration of a province which has received modern development; and that the principle of international trusteeship for the government of backward areas is accepted as part of the new world order.

International Interests in Eritrea

It may be said, also that important international interests are involved in the port of Massowa, which is a link between America, Africa and Asia; and that they would not be assured if the port were placed under Ethiopian administration. It would be possible, however, to restore Ethiopian rule over the province, of which nearly all was formerly part of the Emperor’s kingdom, and the population is closely bound up with the people of Ethiopia, , while, at the same time, providing for international interests in Massowa, and it may be in Asmara. An international body representing the world interests could be appointed to manage and regulate the sea port and the air ports, just as some years after the last war, when Iraq became independent, and Great Britain gave up the mandate, a special port-trust with English direction was established at Basra.

Restoration to Ethiopia

The objection to the course of handing over Eritrea to a foreign manda­tory power is that it would deny Ethiopia her rightful access to the sea, and would offend the sense of justice of the native peoples of Africa, particularly in Ethiopia and Eritrea itself. It is then the third course, restoration to Ethiopia, which, with certain safeguards, seems the only just settlement, The need of providing for transition measures, such as the expropriation of the Italian colonists, and for securing a fair administration of the Danakil ) tribes, who were never effectively brought under Italian rule, could be adequately met by the Ethiopian Government undertaking to enlist expert advisers or administrators from any body established by the United Nations to take the place of the Mandates Section of the League of Nations. The appointment of such advisers and administrators could be a condition of international help for the development of Ethiopia.

Ethiopia’s Good Record

It is to be noted that Ethiopia set a remarkable example of magnanimity, and of generosity towards the subjects of the enemy, after the restoration of her independence. No vindictive demands, no trials of captured Italians, no killing of prisoners by the patriots. The Emperor was prepared to receive into Government and private service Italians who were willing to remain and who could carry out some useful function as mechanics, engineers, or builders. The old idea of war as a struggle between States and not between civilian populations was maintained. Similar magnanimity has been shown by the restored Government of the Emperor towards those Ethiopians who, during the Italian occupation, had collaborated with the usurping Power, either by taking office or by assisting the foreign administration. Several of the present Ministers and heads of the Civil Service were in that category. If a few of the Rases, who had made their submission to the Fascists, and later fought with them against the patriots, were for a time kept under supervision, in no ease has any revenge or vindictive action been taken. That is the best guarantee that the property rights of Italians in their former colony would not be violently confiscated if the territory were restored to Ethiopia.

A Just Settlement

The principle of the settlement should be that, subject to proper safe­guards for international and tribal interests, Eritrea would be restored to the kingdom to which it belongs by history and geography and by the affinities and wishes of its population. The adoption of that course by the United Nations would be regarded throughout Africa and Asia as a proof that the United Nations were acting in the spirit of the Atlantic Charter towards all races. It would be a sign of the sincerity of Great Britain and the United Nations in their will to build up an international order which recog­nises one standard in the relations of all peoples.

 

FUTURE OF THE SOMALIS

As regards Somaliland, the position is less simple. The effect of European diplomacy and the competitive imperialism of the latter part of the 19th century was to cut up the Somali people and the Somali territory between four States: Great Britain, France, Italy and Ethiopia. The Ogaden tribes fell to Ethiopia and formed part of its Southern province. The result of the division has been constant border troubles between the different areas, several serious revolts of the Somalis, and a continued backwardness in their settlement and well-being. It is urged by many officials who have had experience in East Africa that the opportunity should be taken to unite the Somali peoples and the Somali territories under one administration, which would be concerned to prepare them for self-government and to advance their well-being. It would be altogether contrary to the spirit of the Atlantic Charter that Italian Somalia should be annexed for admini­strative purposes to the British colony. But one of two courses might be taken for uniting the territories: (1) They might be placed together under an international administration directly responsible to a World Authority.

The objection to that course is that international administration, as distinct from supervision, has been hitherto regarded as unworkable. (2) They might be placed, with the like responsibility, under the authority of a state which has high standards of civilisation, but has not yet been concerned with the government of dependent peoples. Whatever the plans for the immediate administration of the Somali people, the aim should be to encourage their self-government and their union with the one independent nation in Central Africa, though it would be left to them to decide on their destiny.

If Great Britain and France would agree to give up their Somali areas, in order to secure a unified administration: and if they were prepared also in that case to secure to Ethiopia control over the railway to Jibuti, a fair share in the administration of the port of Jibuti, and facilities in the ports ' of the former Italian Somalia, there would be a case for asking Ethiopia to give up temporarily administration of that part of her southern territory which is inhabited mainly by Somalis, but retaining her sovereignty over it. The Emperor, however, may fairly be suspicious of a proposal that he should give up control of part of his territory; and it is only if Great Britain and France are prepared to make a territorial sacrifice in the interest of the native peoples, on the one hand, and if the settlement provides for the essential economic interests of Ethiopia, on the other, that he could be expected to entertain the proposal.

Future of Jibuti.

Some arrangement must be made in any case to secure a free zone for Ethiopian trade in Jibuti. The toll which has been exacted by harbour and other dues, and by the high freight rates of the French-controlled enterprise on imports and exports carried by the railway, has been a heavy shackle on the foreign trade of Ethiopia. Jibuti, like Massowa, is a port of international concern, at least to the extent that the Ethiopians arc as much concerned in it as the French. And just as arrangements were made after the last war, in Salonica, Trieste, and other European ports to assure the special commercial needs of the Yugoslavs and Czechs, so arrangements should be made to assure the fair representation of Ethiopia in the management of the port of Jibuti, whether it remains under French rule or becomes part of a united Somalia. Similarly, Ethiopian trade should enjoy special treatment in the ports of the former Italian Somaliland, Mogadishu and Kismayu, which are the natural and economic outlets for the produce of Southern and South-Western Ethiopia.

 

ETHIOPIA IN THE NEW ORDER

It might be objected that the foreign trade of Ethiopia is at present of small importance; and that it is unnecessary to provide special arrangements along the whole coast. One of the main reasons, however, for the smallness of the foreign trade has been just the exclusion of Ethiopia in modem times from free and direct access to the sea. Her vast territory is for the most part very fertile; and both soil and climate are favourable to every kind of temperate and subtropical agriculture. With scientific development of her natural resources, she could produce food-stuffs and raw materials, e.g., wheat, coffee, cotton, wanted by neighbouring countries in Africa and the half-desert countries on the other side of the Red Sea. An American Technical Mission has recently paid a lengthy visit to the country, examining the possibilities of agricultural, industrial and mineral develop­ment and also the vital question of transport. Hie smallness of her external trade in the past is no guide to what may be her development in the near future.

The Ethiopians are a proud as well as an independent people. They are anxious to take their part in the New Order, and to make their positive contribution to the well-being of the peoples of Africa and Western Asia by the fuller use of the resources of their country. What the Italian conquerors sought to do by brutal violence, to link up the fertile mountain plateau with the coast, could and should be done by an independent Ethiopia helped by the International Society.

The disposition of the former Italian colonies will be a decisive factor in the new African Order and the new World Order. It will show whether or not the African peoples will be enabled “to walk freely along the great boulevards of the world.” And the British responsibility for it is the greater because British Forces conquered them and British officers have administered them since 1941; and because, also, British Forces helped Ethiopia to recover her independence and freedom which the Italians sought to crush, using those colonies as a base of attack.

 

APPENDIX

Treaty between Great Britain, Egypt and Ethiopia, signed at Adowa, June 3rd, 1884.

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, and His Majesty Johannes, made by the Almighty King of Sion, Negoosa Negust of Ethiopia and its Dependencies, and His Highness Mahamed Teufik, Khedive of Egypt, being desirous of settling the differences which exist between the said Johannes, Negoosa Negast of Ethiopia and Mahamed Tewfik, Khedive of Egypt, and of establishing an everlasting peace between them, have agreed to conclude a Treaty for this purpose which shall be binding on themselves and their heirs and successors; and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, having appointed as her representative, Rear-Admiral Sir William Hewett, Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty’s ships of war in the East Indies, and His Majesty the Negoosa Negust of Ethiopia, acting on his own behalf, and His Highness the Khedive of Egypt, having appointed as his representative His Excellency Mason Bey, Governor of Massawa, they have agreed upon and concluded the following articles:—

ARTICLE I.

From the date of signing of this Treaty there shall be free transit through Massawa to and from Abyssinia for all goods, including arms and ammuni­tion under British protection.

ARTICLE II.

On and after the 1st day of September, 1884, corresponding to the 8th day of Maskarram, 1877, the country called Bogos shall be restored to His Majesty the Negoosa Negust; and when the troops of His Highness the Khedive shall have left the garrisons of Kassala, Amedib and Sanheit, the buildings in the Bogos country which now belong to His Highness the Khedive, together with all the stores and munitions of war which shall then remain in the said buildings, shall be delivered to and become the property of His Majesty the Negoosa Negust.

ARTICLE III.

His Majesty the Negoosa Negust engages to facilitate the withdrawal of the troops of His Highness the Khedive from Kassala, Amedib and Sanheit through Ethiopia to Massawa.

ARTICLE IV.

Ilis Highness the Khedive engages to grant all the facilities which His Majesty the Ncgoosa Negust may require in appointing Aboonas for Ethiopia.

ARTICLE V.

Ilis Majesty the Negoosa Negust and His Highness the Khedive engage to deliver the one to the other any criminal or criminals who may have fled to escape punishment from the dominions of the one to the dominions of the other.

ARTICLE VI.

His Majesty the Negoosa Negust agrees to refer all differences with His Highness the Khedive which may arise after the signing of this Treaty ’ to Her Britannic Majesty for settlement.

ARTICLE VII.

The Present Treaty shall be ratified by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, and by His Highness the Khedive of Egypt, and the ratification shall be forwarded to Adowa as soon as possible.

In witness thereof Rear-Admiral Sir W. Hewett, on behalf of Her Majesty, the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, and His Majesty the Negoosa Negust on. his own behalf, and His Excellency Mason Bay on behalf of His Highness the Khedive of Egypt, have signed and affixed their seal to this Treaty made at Adowa the 3rd day of June, 1884, corresponding to the 27th day of Goounet, 1876.