Under these conditions, Egypt would receive 48 billion cubic meters of water per year and 4 billion cubic meters in Sudan. Egypt would not need the agreement of the upstream states to carry out water projects in its own territories, but could veto all inflows from the Nile into the upstream countries, including the 43,130 square kilometre victoriaiase. The world`s second largest freshwater lake is fed by direct rainfall and thousands of streams from Tanzania, Burundi, Uganda and Kenya, all located in central-eastern Africa. Others argue that there are more important foreign policy concerns than water, which relate to ideological, economic and strategic relations with neighbouring countries (and with external powers) and that make access to “goods” such as foreign aid and investment, oil revenues and remittances, illegal economies and military equipment, water conflicts.  Water for its development, and secondly, that Egypt has historical rights in the waters of the Nile, took the form of two letters; The first was addressed by Mr Mahmoud Pasha, President of the Egyptian Council of Ministers, to Lord Lloyd, the British High Commissioner, the second being the high commissioner`s response. This agreement was signed between Egypt and Great Britain, which represented Uganda, Kenya, Tanganjika (now Tanzania) and Sudan. The document gave Cairo the right to veto higher projects on the Nile that would affect its share of water. In 1959, Egypt and an independent Sudan signed a bilateral agreement that effectively strengthened the provisions of the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. The 1959 agreement increased water allocations for both Egypt and Sudan – Egypt`s water allocation increased from 48 billion cubic meters to 55.5 billion cubic meters and Sudan`s from 4 billion cubic meters to 18.5 billion cubic meters, bringing 10 billion cubic meters to infiltration and evaporation. Finally, the agreement provided that if the average water yield increased, the increase in yields would be evenly distributed between the two downstream riparian countries (for example). Egypt and Sudan).
The 1959 agreement, like the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1929, does not take into account the water needs of other riparian countries, including Ethiopia, whose highlands provide more than 80 per cent of the water flowing into the Nile. When the League of Nations requested a statement from the British and Italian authorities, they challenged the questioning of Ethiopia`s sovereignty over Lake Tana.  Despite this, there was no explicit mechanism for implementing the agreement. A reliable and self-imposed mechanism, capable of protecting the property rights of each interest group, is essential if the principle of sustainable international water development is to be applied economically and environmentally. In 1875, the Conservative government of Benjamin Disraeli purchased the 44% stake of the indebted Egyptian ruler Ismail on the Suez Canal for $4 million to secure control of this strategic waterway, a shipping channel between the United Kingdom and India since it opened six years earlier under Emperor Napoleon III. The Anglo-French joint financial control over Egypt ended in 1882 in a genuine British crew. In 1898, the British recaptured Sudan, removed vegetation along the Nile and created other drainage routes to divert water and improve the river.