By Mohamed Wad’a
Yesterday witnessed a significant shift in the field of international politics, its intersections, and the dynamics of conflicts and their interrelations. There is no doubt that Russia’s use of the veto against the British resolution marked the beginning of a new phase in the way international parties deal with the war in Sudan. Perhaps the most important aspect of this development was the Russian defense and the reasoning provided by the Russian representative for the veto, which largely clarifies the legal and political basis upon which the veto was exercised.
It is rare for harsh or unconventional diplomatic expressions to be used in Security Council sessions. However, it was shocking to witness the overwhelming anger displayed by the British Foreign Secretary, who attended the session in person. He lost his composure, attacked Russian President Putin, and brought the Russian-Ukrainian war into the discussion. The Russian response was strong, reminiscent of the liberation era and anti-colonial rhetoric.
Without a doubt, the veto put an end to regional and international attempts, funded by Emirati bribes, with Britain taking the lead in implementing them. The main reason for this was the use of the pretext of protecting civilians to justify the continued presence of militias in the Sudanese scene, despite the possibility of ending this role once and for all. This is the only way to maintain an inflated role in the anticipated political process after the war ends, bringing forth a new debate on whether a political agreement will end the war, or if a political agreement should be based on stopping the war.
The British draft was an attempt to confiscate sovereignty, strip the Sudanese authorities of their legitimacy, and shuffle the cards in an effort to resurrect the framework agreement in a new version, leading Sudan into a state of chaos, paving the way for its division into warring mini-states. Of course, the British attempts, whether directly or through proxies, will not cease, nor will the UAE stop using all available resources to protect its interests, no matter how costly it becomes. This may add extra burdens to the management of the war, and undoubtedly, it will have a political cost. Therefore, Sudan’s national decision must face the necessity of creating a real balance between adhering to the country’s supreme interests and preserving its national sovereignty, while also building strategic relations with Russia based on mutual interests.
The issue is not about granting a naval base to Russia or Russia using the veto to block the British resolution in Sudan’s favor. The world is reshaping itself. The wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan are drawing the outlines of a new world, with new alliances. Sudan, with its vast resources and strategic geographical location, is poised to play an important role in stabilizing the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.
The Sudanese decision-maker must recognize the value of what they have and accurately define what is in their favor and what is not.
