...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Politics
»
Sudan, rebuilding the Egyptian Empire
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by katangah: [QB] [QUOTE] Al-Ahram Weekly 8 - 14 July 1999 Issue No. 437 Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Diwan of contemporary life (293) From the moment Egypt set foot in Sudan in the last century, Egyptians looked upon the Sudanese as their flesh and blood. The relationship was fostered by the common lifeline, the Nile. The British, after occupying Egypt in 1882, began hacking away at these bonds. They forced Egypt into signing a condominium agreement in 1899 providing for a joint administration in Sudan. But gradually the British edged Egypt out of its southern neighbour both militarily and politically. Dr Yunan Labib Rizk * tells in this instalment of the Diwan series how Al-Ahram hotly defended the Egypt-Sudan kinship and exposed British designs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Out of Sudan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the latter half of the year of the Egyptian revolution of 1919, Egyptian nationalists had strong presentiments about Sudan. Over the year, Britain had begun to implement a number of major irrigation projects there, compelling Al-Ahram to proclaim that Egyptians have the right to know how these projects would affect their water resources. "The Nile is Egypt's lifeline. Because of its dense population and scarce developed land, Egypt has a greater right to the waters of the Nile," it argued. It did not deny Sudan's right to "an equitable" quota of the waters of the Nile, commensurate with its relatively small population, "who are our flesh and blood." In June and July, against the backdrop of on-going clashes between Egyptian protesters and the British occupation forces, the British authorities arranged for a visit by a delegation of Sudanese leaders to London. Headed by Al-Sayed Ali Al-Mirghani, the delegation paid homage to the British king and met with the Foreign Secretary, Curzon, "who discussed with them issues pertaining to the future of Sudan." A few weeks later, Curzon delivered a lengthy speech before the House of Lords on "the Egyptian question." One passage was certain to compound Egyptian misgivings over their southern neighbour: "I want to say a word about the encouraging situation in Sudan. The people of that country, still under the government of Sir Lee Stack, governor-general of Sudan, continue to maintain public order. They have offered clear proof of their love for Great Britain last July through a visit by a delegation of their dignitaries to His Majesty's government. The delegation expressed to His Majesty and then to myself their great appreciation for the work Great Britain has undertaken towards the advancement of their country. They also confirmed that they took no part in the incidents that occurred in Egypt recently and that their sole aspiration is to remain a part of the British Empire." Several months later, Egyptian presentiments turned into fear when, in response to a nudge from the British, a group of Sudanese religious leaders, of whom Al-Mirghani was one, founded the newspaper, Hidarat Al-Sudan (The civilisation of Sudan). In its first issue, the newspaper called upon Sudan to distance itself completely from the Egyptian nationalist movement and expressed its hopes to see an entirely British administration in Sudan. The British, in its opinion, "have always dedicated themselves sincerely to the progress and prosperity of the Sudanese." This contrasted with "the hardship inflicted upon them by the Egyptian administration in the period preceding the Mahdist movement." The new newspaper found support in an older newspaper, Al-Sudan, also established with British assistance in the early years of dual control. Not coincidentally, the founders of this newspaper were the owners of the staunchly pro-British Egyptian newspaper, Al-Muqattam . Yet, the British must have felt that they needed a more "indigenous" voice in Sudan. Al-Sudan founders, Nimr and Yacoub Sarrouf, were of Syrian origin and, of course, the British strings behind Al-Muqattam had, by then, been thoroughly exposed. Al-Sudan was expected to meet the same fate. Already, Al-Ahram had complained that the British press was deriving most of its information on Sudan from that newspaper and called upon "writers and those concerned with the sacred Egyptian cause to refute the claims of that newspaper and expose its fallacious arguments." In response to the mounting fears over British plans for the Sudan, Al-Ahram, in the period from 27 February to 14 March 1920, launched a counter-drive. Appearing under the odd, if appropriate, headline, "And Sudan...?", the series opened: "Egypt, Sudan, the Suez Canal, Palestine, Iraq and Iran are vital to Britain because they lie on its route to India, as Lord Curzon proclaimed to the delirious applause of the House of Commons. But, if Egypt said, 'Sudan belongs to me as much as I belong to it; it sustains me and I, alone, sustain it,' British writers would cry out, 'What stuff and nonsense!'" The article then proceeds to explain how Britain had undermined Egyptian-Sudanese relations. "For a century Britain chipped away at Egypt's might and impeded its development. Then, when it appeared that the Orabi rebellion was about to transfer government to the hands of the people, the British hastened to occupy our country and, then, to rupture its bond of security with Sudan." In this pursuit, the British attempted to portray Sudan as a separate entity. "The world would say that Sudan is Egypt and Britain would respond, no, that is Sudan, until eventually it placed Sudan under the administration of what the Manchester Guardian calls 'a partnership' between Egypt and Great Britain." That the British press had taken up the Foreign Office's claim that Sudan was a separate entity was worrisome, particularly when the highly influential London Times proclaimed, "Egypt is one nation; Sudan is another". Equally disturbing was the fact that other British newspapers began to sound warnings to the effect that if Egypt secured control over Sudan it would set its sights on the equatorial sources of the Nile in Uganda which was, at that time, a British protectorate. It is important to note that Al-Ahram accorded its campaign to defend Egypt's claim to Sudan high priority. The seven articles on the subject were featured prominently in the upper half of the front page, in the space generally allotted to major editorials. The articles were also unsigned, generally an indication that the editor-in-chief, himself, had written them. Moreover, contrary to its treatment of most issues of concern to public opinion, the newspaper did not solicit readers' opinions on the subject, possibly because the question of Sudan was too clear-cut to brook any give and take. Egypt's kinship to Sudan was obviously a self-evident tenet of the Egyptian nationalist cause, and Al-Ahram clearly saw it as its task to challenge the British stance on this issue. Al-Ahram's campaign to defend Egypt's claim to the Sudan appealed strongly to historical evidence. Indeed, three of the seven articles were, in effect, historical studies. The title of the first, "From Mohamed Ali to Abbas II: 1812-1903", might strike specialists in Egyptian-Sudanese relations as odd. To them, the two dates defining the period of the study would seem arbitrary. They would more readily accept, for example 1820 and 1899, the first being the year in which Mohamed Ali initiated the military expedition to the Sudan and the latter being the year in which the Egyptian-British "Dual Control" over Sudan took effect. Yet, as we read the article, we come to understand why Al-Ahram chose those other dates. According to Al-Ahram, 1812 marked the beginning of Mohamed Ali's Sudanese policy. It was in that year that the Egyptian ruler sent a goodwill mission carrying gifts to the king of Sennar to court his friendship. The mission included "military men and scholars who wrote extensive reports and drew up plans for the conquest of Sudan." In 1816, Al-Ahram continues, Mohamed Ali sent another team "to investigate the gold deposits in Zabara mountain and to draw up a map of the country." As for the other end of the time span, 1903 marked the year in which the British crystallised their Sudan policy. In the four-year interval following the defeat of the Mahdist regime and the establishment of Dual Control in 1899, the British Commissioner in Cairo, Lord Cromer, visited Sudan three times, during which "he delivered speeches promising reforms and new public works programmes." Cromer's speeches appeared to be the concrete fulfilment of the prediction made by Gladstone in 1877, five years before the British occupation of Egypt. Gladstone had said: "Once we set foot in Egypt, that will sow the seed for building our East African empire. Then we will move beyond the Blue and White Niles to the equator, extending our reach to Natal and the Cape, swallowing up Ethiopia on the way." Al-Ahram's historical survey of Egyptian-Sudanese relations pinpointed significant Egyptian personalities and accomplishments. Among those cited for their achievements was an Egyptian police commandant in Sudan, who was credited with "ordering the construction of Khartoum and other cities, extending the conquests towards Ethiopia... building mosques and primary schools and teaching the people to wear clothes made of woven fabrics instead of animal pelts." When Mohamed Ali on 2 August 1849, the newspaper observed that "lamentations were widespread throughout Sudan." Mohamed Ali's successor, Abbas I, continued to implement projects to develop Sudan. The second Al-Ahram article in the series gave a coherent picture of Egypt's role in the south. What is particularly striking is that it draws on corroborative testimony from European, and specifically British, sources. It quoted British and French scholars as saying that before the Mahdist uprising in Sudan, an Ottoman edict of 1865 had granted the coastal areas of Suakin and Massawa to Egypt. In 1875 Egypt annexed Zeila and the surrounding areas. In 1882, the Egyptian borders in Sudan were defined to include Lake Albert, Lake Victoria "and the area two degrees south." Samuel Baker, the famous British discoverer and governor of Equatoria province under Khedive Ismail, testifies to the security of that large stretch of territory under Egyptian control. Al-Ahram quotes him as saying that "the European tourist can tour these lands, the area of which is equivalent to that of France, Germany and Britain combined, with a sense of safety and comfort one might not be able to find in Hyde Park after nightfall." The article argues that the British took advantage of the Mahdist uprising to push the Egyptians out of Sudan and strip Egypt of its southern possessions. It quotes Sir Reginald Wingate, who wrote in The Mahdis and Sudan, "The Sudan rebelled against the abolition of slavery and the monopoly on ivory and against the harshness of the administrative officials. However, the uprising was local. The British welcomed this and manoeuvred to have the Egyptian army withdrawn from Sudan." The British moved to fill the void they created. "They occupied the coasts of the Red Sea without consulting the Khedive. The forces of Admiral White landed in Suakin, the engineers laid out plans for the railroad to Berber and Colonel Hunter landed in the ports of Somalia and signed a pact with the King of Ethiopia as though Egypt's title to these lands had no value. Let history judge." The third historical essay was devoted to the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium agreement. Signed by Britain and Egypt in January 1899, the Condominium arranged for dual Egyptian and British administrative control over Sudan. Although Sudan, under the agreement, remained nominally Egyptian, in effect it was run as a British colony, with Egyptians having to foot much of the costs. The agreement would rankle with Egyptians for decades afterwards. In this article, Al-Ahram discussed the details of the agreement and cited Cromer's pretexts for making Britain Egypt's partner in governing Sudan. Again, by way of comment, Al-Ahram quoted a contemporary senior official who had been privy to some of the details of the Condominium. He said, "I am incapable of finding any legal justification for it in all bodies of law." The last four articles in Al-Ahram's campaign to defend Egypt's claim to Sudan focused on the British drive to bring Sudan entirely under its hegemony. The Egyptian "evacuation from Sudan was not meant to expose it to plunder," the first of these four articles proclaimed in its headline. While the British may have forced the Khedive Tawfiq to withdraw his personnel from the south so that British forces could move in, on the pretext of protecting Egypt from the Mahdist uprising, Egypt had not forfeited its rights to the country. Tawfiq "did not leave Sudan as fair game. Rather, he withdrew out of military exigency. Sudan, therefore, remains an Egyptian property, recognised internationally and under international law which is said to be the order under which all nations operate." It was in the Equatoria province that the British exposed their true designs on Sudan. This province had never fallen under the control of the Mahdists. Nevertheless, after the British occupied Wadi Halfa, Suakin, Berbera, Zeila and Uganda, "the Equatoria province, which at the time was under the command of Amin Pasha, was the only area left in Sudan under Egyptian rule." In their desire to wrest this latter province away from Egypt, "they compelled Prime Minister Nubar Pasha to write to Amin Pasha to inform him that the government of the khedive was unable to continue to assist him and gave him complete freedom to act as he saw fit, and that should he wish to withdraw he should move to Zanzibar." The article continues, "The British continued to pressure Amin Pasha until he withdrew from the area. The Egyptian arm which had embraced all ports of Sudan was withdrawn and the Egyptian flag which had fluttered there for half a century was folded." "Such is history as it is. It holds the proof, for all who seek it, of an episode of coercion and hardship that set upon Egypt a full century ago," the article concluded. The next instalment cited further corroborative testimony regarding British colonialist machinations at the expense of Egyptian rights. One source was The History and Geography of Sudan Past and Present by Naoum Bek Shuqeir (1903). Shuqeir, who had worked in Egyptian military intelligence under the British, was perplexed by the fact that Abdel-Qader Helmi, the Governor-General of Sudan, had been recalled from the Sudan in spite of his success in quelling the Mahdist uprising. Shuqeir recalls, "I asked Abdel-Qader Pasha, 'Why were you recalled from Sudan in spite of your success in restoring peace to the country?' Abdel-Qader responded, 'They charged me with seeking independence, naturally.'" The article also cites Boutros Ghali Pasha, Egyptian foreign minister at the time of the negotiations over the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, who wrote to Cromer on 19 October 1898: "The government of His Royal Highness the Khedive has never lost sight of its desire to reoccupy Sudan. That region is the source of Egypt's life. If Egypt had withdrawn from it temporarily, that was the result of overwhelmingly compelling circumstances." In the opinion of Al-Ahram , the Anglo-Egyptian accords of 1899 had no validity. Its sixth article in the series argued, "Although Great Britain assisted the Khedive Abbas in regaining his lands, or, better put, in suppressing the rebellion and restoring peace in Sudan, it did it on its own accord. If Great Britain came to terms with the khedive, these conditions are invalid, as the khedive had no right to negotiate over land that was under Turkish suzerainty." The article rallies yet another British authority to its support: the British foreign secretary told the House of Commons, "As regards the question of Sudan, we are not bound by any treaty, law or system." The oft-cited pretext used by the British to justify ruling Sudan, with or without the Egyptians, was that they helped pay for the campaign to reconquer Sudan. Al-Ahram is quick to refute this claim. The Egyptian government put up more than LE8 million for the Dongola expedition alone, while the British contributed less than LE800,000 towards the entire campaign, it said. In order to raise the funds, the Egyptian government "acting on British instructions, began to sell off whatever it could. It sold off the royal ships, it allocated all open credits towards the war effort and it sold off so much royal land and government property that the newspapers began to blazon, 'Egypt is on auction!'" The final article in the series discussed the relationship between colonising powers and the peoples under their control. Colonised people frequently entertain the notion that they can play upon the internal conflicts within the colonising countries. Al-Ahram was one of the first voices to contend that the stratagem was futile. Under the headline, "Liberals and Conservatives", Al-Ahram argued that whatever the differences the two British parties may have on domestic issues, on matters of foreign affairs they are one. The article relates that, on one occasion, a liberal MP objected that the Sudan expedition would be too heavy a financial burden upon Britain. When the prime minister responded that Egypt would be bearing the costs, "the MP was content." On another occasion, the head of the Liberal Party questioned whether Egypt would be able to come up with the necessary funds. The foreign secretary answered that if Egypt could not, the necessary funds would be drawn from the Debt Fund. "The Liberal Party chief made no objection, because he found the solution totally satisfactory." Clearly, Al-Ahram recognised a reality that few are aware of up to the present. Many today are overly obsessed with the elections that take place in the West, or even in Israel, under the illusion that the victory of one candidate over another will serve some of our causes. Al-Ahram realised, even at that early date, that the realisation of our aspirations depends upon how well we make use of our available sources of power, not upon the good intentions of others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The author is a professor of history and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre. [/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3