Sovereign or King ?
Anyone—say an American—who comes fresh to the problem of a settlement between Britain and Egypt, may well find it almostincredible that success or failure apparently hinges on hair- splitting over King Farouk's legal title. Until last October the official title of the King of Egypt was" King of Egypt, Sovereign of Nubia, the Sudan, Kordofan and Darfur." The title was changed by the Egyptian Parliament last October to the simpler but, except to constitutional lawyers, essentially similar "King of Egypt and the Sudan." Why, then, all the fuss ? The answer is simply that a change was made, and that, in the mood of intense excitement which ruled last October, the change was intended to mean something. Since then, no doubt, the Egyptians have tried to minimise the significance of the change, just as opinion in Britain and in the Sudan has tended to over-emphasise its significance. It is probably, therefore, impossible to do any more juggling of words and formulas so that both Egyptians and Sudanese should be satisfied. On the other hand, as the self-appointed guardians of Sudanese rights, the British Government would be perfectly justified in pointing out to the Sudanese themselves certain essential facts of the situation. The first of these is that King Farouk's legal title to claim sovereignty over the Sudan is a good one; the second is that, if things continue to take their present course, it may well be less than two year before the Sudanese find them- selves completely independent, whereupon their first need will be to arrange a peaceful modus vivendi with Egypt. In view of these facts there would seem to be an unanswerable case for bringing Sudanese representatives into the discussions with Egypt immediately. As long as they remain simply detached and suspicious observers of events they will continue to claim a greater degree of political isolation than their past history or present condition justifies.
Previous page
