Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 2 May 1930, Page 4

T'he cabled reports stating that the Egyptian Cabinet has decided that ii would be bad tactics to allow the -*nglo-Egyptian conference in London to break down over the claim for a share i!n the administration of the ,-udan indicate that the Wald Executive is prepared to act witli discretion on this one question at least. It is difficult to understand, says the “Otago Times” upon what grounds the Egyptian Government considers itself entitled to claim any form of sovereignty over tlie Sudan. If it cared to cite Moha'med Ali’s conquest of the country in 1821 as authority for the un.disguised desire to obtain control in the territory, Great ,11 rttai'O might just as reasonably advance similar claims based on the expeditions of Hicks Pasha in 1888, of Gordon, and of Kitchener. But whereas Great Britain has not the desire to annex a country to which she does not assert a. right of possession, Egypt jealously covets it, regardless of every dictate oi reason and justice. Since 1924, of course, when the Egyptian quota of the joint Anglo-Egyptian garrison was withdrawn from the Sudan at the request of the British Government, fol-

lowing the murder of Sir Lee Stack, tne Anglo-Egyptian Condominium has survived in name only, but the Egyptians have themselves to blame for their loss of status. The British Government lias always recognised that Egypt has certain material interests in tne Sudan winch must be safeguarded, and These interests" have been secure under the British administration of the country. The Government is not prepared, however, to admit the right of Egypt to obtain control in the Sudan, and has very plainly emphasised its determination that no attempt to disturb the administration will be tolerated. By the terms of the proposed Anglo-Egyptian treaty the conventions of 1899 relating to the status of the Sudan are reaffirmed, subject to the right of the contracting parties \o arrive at a new agreement in the future. The Egyptians are offered, as a concession, the liberty to send a battalion to the territory. This-treaty lias been described as representing “the extreme limit” to which the British decision in regard to the Sudan, as defined in the treaty, is unalterable, md rightlv so, for the British Government would indeed lie reckless it it were prepared to risk the upsetting of the peaceful era in the Sudan which wise administrative methods have established there. Acknowledgement by the Wafd of this fact should occasion neither surprise nor satisfaction, for the Wafd is merely acknowledging the inevitable. I