And the ambitions of British policy 75 — 2 — A study of the political situation in Sudan By His Excellency Sir Reginald Wingate Pasha The agreement of 1899 — between the Egyptian government and the English government — is, in the view of Egyptians, null and void, and in the view of the English, valid. Egypt is bound by its provisions.

The Egyptians base their argument for its nullity on the fact that Turkey did not ratify this agreement. They further add: that Egypt itself did not ratify it willingly, but only submitted to it under duress — confined by the force of England.

The English responded to this argument by stating that the 1899 agreement binds Egypt because Egypt signed it, even if Turkey did not submit to it. As for the issue of Turkey's non-submission, all that can be said from the Egyptian perspective is that Egypt contracted for the property of another. In this case, the usurper, i.e., Egypt, has no right to deny the contract it entered into; rather, this right belongs to the rightful owner, which is Turkey. What further weakens Egypt's insistence on the nullity of the 1899 agreement is that the contract of usurpation it signed was confirmed by Turkey's renunciation of any claim it had on Egypt.

And if the Treaty of Sèvres is still under amendment, it is customary that the amendment sought in it pertains to other matters besides this renunciation of its right in Egypt, which renunciation has become final.

As for the claim that Egypt is freed from the bonds of the 1899 agreement on the grounds that its consent to it was tainted and tainted by the force of coercion from England! A coercion that could not be resisted. This is a confusion between the principles of civil law and the principles of public law. And these are peace treaties that the vanquished were forced to sign by force of arms; can they be