And the ambitions of British policy. 77 British good, not the current Sudan. But this does not negate in any way our doctrine. Is the statute in force in Sudan by virtue of the agreement of 1899 or In other words, does the dual Anglo-Egyptian rule there create a vested right for Sudan towards Egypt? If they say so, our decisive answer is: Sudan has no distinct personality from Egypt. And if it had a distinct personality, Egypt did not contract with Sudan. But what is the benefit of standing before these assumptions? Let us face the truth head-on. And the truth is, we all know that Sudan has no personality outside or separate from the personality of Egypt. From here stems the legal impossibility for Sudan to acquire rights towards Egypt.

We have said and repeat here: the 1899 agreement does not bind Egypt legally. But if we come to action, we find that our negotiators will encounter strong resistance from Britain, which clings with all its might to that agreement. And these English funds have been used or are about to be used in Sudan. And the vast field of work in Sudan - which is a fertile land not yet exploited - is to occupy the English businessmen. And the error of public opinion English, which considers half of Sudan, if not all of Sudan, to be English property. And the English interest in completing the railway extending from the Cape of Good Hope All these are factors that compel the English government to cling to that agreement. If we assume that tomorrow we reach a satisfactory agreement with the English on the reservations mentioned in the "Declaration to Egypt" and there is no room for dispute about Sudan, will our negotiator break off negotiations for that? The answer to this serious question in such a case would be from the country, or in other words, it would be the concern of the nation's representatives whom the government incites. But if they are determined to accept conciliation in the matter;