Foreign News: THE SUDAN

Arrival. Premier Saad Zaghlul of Egypt arrived in London to confer with Premier Ramsay MacDonald upon the Sudan dispute. At Victoria Station, he and Mme. Zaghlul were hailed with enthusiasm by Egyptian students who lustily cried: “Long live British Democracy! Egypt and the Sudan for the Egyptians! Representatives of the British Premier and Foreign Office met the Egyptian Premier; Londoners gave him a quiet, but friendly, welcome.

Interviewed, Saad Zaghlul Pasha stated:

“I will find myself in the face of the greatest power in the world. I support myself upon the confidence of my country and the justice of my cause. I feel myself stronger. I have the greatest hope of arriving at a satisfactory accord; but if success does not reward my efforts, I will continue to fight by the way of law and justice.”

Unless the aged Zaghlul Pasha succeeds in arranging a “favorable settlement” with Britain, his political future is precarious.

Three men. Before leaving the U. S. for Cairo a fortnight ago, Dr. J. Morton Howell, U. S. Minister to Egypt, gave his opinion of three men most closely concerned with Egyptian affairs:

King Fuad. “I have known King Fuad for three years, commencing with the time when he was Sultan, and have watched his activities with great interest. He is an able ruler and an upright and just man in all his dealings with his Ministers and his people. King Fuad is a man in every way equipped to be a sovereign of the best type—and such he is.

“It has been stated here that King Fuad was educated in Italy, and is anxious to leave Egypt and get back to Europe when he has made sure of getting a good portion of his present income as a civil pension in his retirement, and that he speaks Turkish and Arabic with a foreign accent. It is true that the ruler of Egypt was educated in Italy; but it is untrue that he wishes to leave his throne and his people to return there. He has lived in Egypt for many years and speaks his native tongue like an Egyptian, and Turkish also.

“Reports have been circulated in America that many attempts have been made to assassinate King Fuad and that he is afraid for his life. This is also untrue. No attempt has been made upon the life of the King. He has great courage, which has won for him the respect of his Ministers and the affection of the Egyptian people.”

Premier Saad Zaghlul. “Zaghlul is 77 years old and is not the demagog leader of the people that he was a few years ago, when he was fighting politically against England. He is Prime Minister and has heavy responsibilities on his shoulders, which make men think before they speak or act.”

Lord Allenby. British High Commissioner for Egypt and the Sudan. “At present Lord Allenby, a man to whom the Egyptians are indebted for their independence in 1922, is conferring amicably with the Premier, Zaghlul Pasha; and I have no doubt that some agreement will be reached that will settle the questions in dispute between England and Egypt. . . . Despite all that has happened between Lord Allenby and the Premier, they are good friends, and entertain at each other’s homes, and appear together frequently in public. Lord Allenby is 64 years old and a splendid man in every way. Both sides have been softened by experience and age.”

History. Not during 6,000 years of history had Egypt claimed suzerainty over the Sudan until the year 1820 when Mehemet Ali, “barbarian of genius,” and Sultan Mahmud II of Turkey succeeded in conquering the country. But even this victory was only nominal; for the Turko-Egyptians were never able to assert complete mastery over the country which they contemptuously called Bilad-es-Sudan, “country of the blacks.” In 1882 came the revolt of the Mahdi, “Guide of Islam,” aimed specifically at the Egyptians whose corrupt practices were thoroughly despised. The regime of the Mahdi was later replaced by that of the Khalifa. Under the latter, the country sank from bad to worse—virtually to a sparsely populated and barren wilderness. Sixteen years after the rise of the Mahdi, the Sudan was conquered by British and Egyptian troops, under the able leadership of Sir H. H. (afterwards Lord) Kitchener. The next year, 1899, an Anglo-Egyptian condominum in the Sudan was established. Under the terms of this agreement, Britain claimed, “by right of conquest,” a share in the legislation and administration of the country. This claim has ever since been asserted (TIME, Aug. 25). Moreover, during this period, Britain has rescued Egypt from the hands of the Turks, under whom she was a “tribute-paying viceroyalty”; and, from a British Protectorate, has made her a quasi-independent state with a King of her own.

Britain’s Case. Since the year 1899, the whole face of the Sudan— at present about one-third the size of the U. S. with a population just under 6 million people—has been changed. The most stupendous of British-built irrigation systems, by which the flow of the Nile is regulated, have greatly assisted the revitalization of the country. Naturally, Great Britain is adverse to renouncing her claims over such a territory.

Then there is the Suez Canal problem. The Canal is owned ‘by an international company operating from Paris. Its defense was undertaken entirely by Britain, and, in order to defend it, a share in the government of the Sudan was a most necessary condition. Moreover, the Suez is the “Gate to India” and Britain is never likely to relinquish the key without a considerable struggle.

Lastly, there is a fine moral issue. Britain is bound by promises given to the Sudanese people. Premier MacDonald recently said: “It must clearly be understood that Great Britain cannot throw off its responsibilities contracted to the Sudan and the Sudanese by withdrawing and handing the government of that country to any other government. . . . We must stand by the people of the Sudan; we have a moral obligation to them.”

This summarized the normal British point of view. Of course there are the extreme Imperialists who visualize the Sudan as a great cotton-growing ,area and advocate the development of the country under purely British auspices and in terms far from conciliating to the Egyptians.

Egypt’s Case. The Egyptian point ; of view is more complicated. Aside from questions which affect Egypt proper—such as the maintenance of British troops at Cairo, Alexandria and other points, the right which Britain has reserved to herself to protect foreigners in Egypt and the British guarantee of defense against foreignaggression—the Sudan problem resolves itself into a straight demand for exclusive control of the country by Egypt.

So far as the Nationalists are concerned, the basis of this demand rests upon a geographical claim which, although unsupported ethnographic cally, is borne out by the fact that the two countries would form a single and convenient political entity. Moreover, they claim that it is unnecessary for Britain to maintain a garrison on Sudan territory for the protection of the Suez Canal.

Aside from these specious arguments, which only color the picture, the real casus foederis is the promise, made at the time Britain relinquished her Protectorate over Egypt (TIME, Apr. 28, 1923), that the whole question of the Sudan would be reserved for later settlement. The Moderates recognize that Britain has rights in the Sudan, but “what are those rights?” What is Britain’s legitimate share in the administration of the Sudan now that Egypt is supposed to be an independent country? Does not the willingness of the British Government to settle the future status of the country imply some compromise? What is the real claim of Egypt? Britons answer that capital in the country has largely been supplied by Britain; that she has a claim “by right of conquest.” The Egyptians feel they are competent to carry on the administration of the country, which they conquered in 1820 and administered until the arrival of the Mahdi. They make it a question of national honor—a strong and powerful argument with the Egyptians.

The Egyptian Extremists assert, however, that the British irrigation schemes in the Sudan will cut off the water supply of the Nile in Egyptian territory. As Egypt is predominantly an agricultural country, this would be a fatal blow. As a matter of fact, as the British have pointed out, not “one single pint” of water would be kept from Egypt. Those in authority on both sides well know this.

These are some of the conflicting points of view—the reconciliation of which is to be attempted by Britain and Egypt.