And the ambitions of British policy. VV But this does not negate our doctrine in any way. Does the statute in force in Sudan by virtue of the agreement of 1899, or by any other means, does the dual Anglo-Egyptian rule there grant Sudan a vested right against Egypt?! If they say so, our definitive answer is: Sudan has no distinct personality from Egypt. And if it had a distinct personality from Egypt, it would not be compatible with Sudan. But what is the benefit of standing in front of these assumptions? Let us face the truth head-on. And the truth is, as we have said, that Sudan has no personality outside of or separate from the personality of Egypt. From this stems the legal impossibility for Sudan to acquire rights against Egypt. We have said and it is established here: the 1899 agreement does not bind Egypt legally. But if we come to action, we find that our negotiations will encounter strong resistance from England, 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 - a fertile land not yet exploited -is revealed to English businessmen, and the error of English public opinion which considers half of Sudan, if not all of Sudan, to be English property, and the interest of the railway extending from the Cape of Good Hope. All these are factors that lead the English government to be devoted to adhering to that agreement. So, if we assume that tomorrow we reach a satisfactory agreement with the English on the reservations mentioned in the "Declaration to Egypt," and the only point of contention remains regarding Sudan, will it break off our negotiations, the negotiations for that? The answer to this serious question in such a case would be the right of the country, or in other words, it would be the concern of the nation's representatives, whom the government consults. But if they are determined to accept a compromise on the matter, then