By Dr Ashraf Abul Saud
Some people may think that current problems in relations between Egypt and Sudan are a natural product of diverging interests or political visions between the two countries.
Historical truth shows, however, something else, especially if we study British colonial archives which throw light on the engineering of fake narratives of hostility between the two nations.
This hostility was manufactured in British laboratories to amputate the common memory of the peoples of the two countries.
On January 19, 1899, a bilateral governance agreement, officially known as the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Agreement, was signed and introduced as an equal partnership between Egypt and Britain to administer Sudan.
Nonetheless, an analysis of the terms of the agreement reveals that it was in essence a legal mechanism designed with great English ingenuity to marginalise Egypt and consolidate British control over the two countries.
This was documented by German historian Gabriel R. Warburg in his study, The Sudan under Wingate: Administration in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (1899-1916), where he explains that the British, headed by Earl of Cromer and
Governor-General Sir Francis Reginald Wingate, formulated a flawed administration that kept for it the real joints of power in Sudan, including governance, the army, finance, education, while Egypt was given a formal
presence in secondary positions.
Egyptians, which was a nominal partner in the government, was introduced to the Sudanese as subordinate or secondary, while the British were the absolute masters.
This distorted image, which was perpetuated over decades, was the nucleus of Egyptian colonisation as an idea. Regrettably, this idea was later promoted among the Sudanese people. Nevertheless, the promotion of this idea
needed the presence of a new generation of intellectuals who could plant this malicious seed in the conscience of the Sudanese.
If the 1899 agreement paved the legal framework for exclusion, the closed-door policy was the most lethal executive tool in Egyptian-Sudanese relations. This framework was strictly applied as of the early 20th century. It was not a passing administrative measure, but a project of systematic cultural and administrative cleansing.
The British worked hard to exclude Arab Muslims from northern Sudan to isolate this country from its Arab and Egyptian surroundings and institute new elite that would be loyal to Britain in all fields. The results of this
policy were disastrous at the level of the Sudanese collective consciousness, as a whole generation of Sudanese citizens grew up to view Egyptians, not as brothers or geographical neighbours, but as competitors and outsiders.
Britain also used huge propaganda tools to consecrate the lie of Egyptian colonisation as a historical fact in the minds of the Sudanese. This was explained by Egyptian historian Abdel Azeem Ramadan in his book, The Lie of
Egyptian Colonisation of Sudan.
In his book, Ramadan argues that the British worked to sever all national ties between the Egyptians and the Sudanese and portray Egyptian presence in Sudan as an abominable occupation. This, he says, aimed to create
an image of the British as the saviours of Sudan.
The British also amplified the mistakes of the past, including those that happened during the Turkish-Egyptian era (1821-1885). These mistakes were entrenched as a feature associated with the Egyptians, while the British
administration was embellished by launching the slogan “Sudan for the Sudanese”, which meant only one thing: separating Egypt from Sudan.
Britain also worked hard to manipulate Sudanese school curricula to distort historical narrative of Egypt’s role, while highlighting Britain’s role as a cultural saviour of the Sudanese people.
This was accompanied by the deliberate use of press reports to spread terms, such as “occupying Egyptians” and the “systematic” and “permanent exploitation” of Sudan by Egypt.
Sorry to say, lies were turned into truths in the Sudanese public consciousness, which may explain some historical Sudanese positions towards Egypt.
The events of 1924 were revealing in this regard. Britain used the 1924 assassination of Governor-General Sir Lee stack to implement its old plans. Ironically, the Sudanese national revolution of 1924, which was led by
great Sudanese patriots, such as Obaid Hajj al-Amin, was in essence a revolution against British colonialism. The British succeeded, however, in using it to justify further Egyptian exclusion and present themselves as
guardians of the security and the stability of Sudan.
Meanwhile, the colonial administration succeeded in creating future territorial and legal disputes that framed Egypt as an expansionist state seeking to seize the lands and the resources of Sudan.
The Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Agreement of 1899 defines geographical borders between the two states in a clear way. However, in 1902,
the British sowed the seeds of friction between the two countries by drawing what they called “Administrative Borders”, ostensibly to regulate grazing rights for Bedouin tribes in the border area.
This proved to be an elaborate colonial trap where the British created a burning legal contradiction between the 1899 political borders and the 1902 administrative borders to serve as a ticking time bomb that would
explode after the end of the British occupation. This aimed to create unending territorial disputes between Egypt and Sudan on the road to igniting border conflicts between the two countries that sabotage any real strategic or
military integration in the Nile Valley.
Noteworthy, Sudan was not mentioned as an independent state in any of the agreements referred to above, but was subject to direct British occupation, just like Egypt. These agreements were drafted by Britain which
controlled both Egypt and Sudan, even as they were portrayed as bilateral ones.
This proves that Sudan was not either deceived or sacrificed by Egypt, but both countries were under the responsibility of one colonial power,
namely Britain.
On May 7, 1929, Egypt and Britain, as a representative of Sudan, signed an agreement to share the waters of the River Nile. Although the agreement granted Sudan a limited share, it granted Egypt veto power over future irrigation projects in Sudan.
This clause was used as a tool of psychological incitement against Egypt among the Sudanese, even as Egypt did not use this veto power to abort any Sudanese projects during bilateral rule.
The fact is that studying the history of relations between Egypt and Sudan by analysing colonial policies gives insights into some fundamental facts that explain many transient tensions.
If anything, these policies show that such tensions have been only the fake legacy left by British colonialism in the collective memory and geopolitics of the two brotherly countries.
Dr Ashraf Abul Saud
Writer and an international relations scholar
[email protected]
- Latest
- Trending
