The policy of the British is a strange one.

The evacuation of Sudan is not a matter of concern.

Politicians told the small or weak nation that this land is yours.

Might is right, and the weak should wait until they regain their strength and then reclaim their kingdom and their rights. But modern civilization, in its long development, has reached a point where it has abandoned might for right, making it a slogan in words and a constitution in deeds. It has clung to the old, that is, to might, and has begun to dress it in new clothes, that is, in right and law, in words only.

In matters of state, no issue is more apparent and clearer than that of Sudan and Egypt. When Britain entered Egypt, it was preceded by proclamations from the Sultan of Turkey, considering Arabi a rebel and his efforts seditious, with the support of many Egyptian notables and the consent of the powers. This was to consolidate the Khedive's throne, or rather, to keep Khedive Tewfik on the throne.

The first thing it did was to force the Khedive to withdraw his troops from Sudan.

The Khedive, the owner of Egypt and Sudan, or the owner of the Nile from its source to its mouth, withdrew his troops from that land, leaving it open for anyone to occupy. It was not a withdrawal due to military necessity or for war reasons. Sudan, therefore, remained an Egyptian possession in the eyes of the powers and in the eyes of the law, which they say is a system that governs all. Before the Egyptian troops withdrew from Sudan, British troops landed in Suakin and the coasts of Somaliland, and Italian troops landed in Massawa. Lord Dufferin stated in his report in 1883 that the Egyptian troops should withdraw from the eastern, western, and southern provinces. But his conscience did not allow him to say that they should withdraw from the Nile Valley from its source to its mouth. He said: "Some people have suggested to the Egyptian government that it should withdraw from all of Sudan, but it does not expect it to do so, as Egypt lives by the Nile."