And the ambitions of British policy 75 - 2 -A study of the political situation in Sudan By His Excellency Hussein Rushdi Pasha The agreement of 1899 - between the Egyptian government and the English government -is, in the view of Egyptians, invalid, and in the view of the English, valid, and Egypt is bound by its provisions.

The Egyptians base their argument for its invalidity on the fact that Turkey did not ratify that agreement. Then they add to the foregoing: that Egypt itself did not approve it willingly and only submitted to it under duress, subjugated by the power of England.

The English responded to this argument by stating that the 1899 agreement binds Egypt because it was signed, even if Turkey did not submit to it. As for the issue of Turkey's non-submission, all that can be said about it from the Egyptian perspective is that Egypt contracted for the property of another. In this case, the contracting party, i.e., Egypt, does not have the right to deny the contract, but rather this right belongs to the rightful owner, i.e., Turkey. This further elaborates on Egypt's insistence on the invalidity of the 1899 agreement, that the contract of usurpation it signed was supported by Turkey's abandonment of any claim it had to Egypt.

And if the Treaty of Sèvres is still under amendment, it is customary that the amendment required in it aims at other aspects besides that meaning of its right in Egypt, which is the meaning that 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 distorted 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. Are peace treaties that the negotiators were forced to sign by force of iron and fire permissible?