Overlapping Agendas War in Sudan

By; Al-Obied Ahmed Muraweh

The war of Sudan which was erupted by the RSF militia rebellion mid April 2023 is inching to its seventh month.
Despite the thousands of commentaries, TV interviews, and dozens of essays written on the issue, the identity and goal of the war are still surrounded by vagueness as there are tens of breeding questions of which if you find an answer another question emerges that needs an answer.
It goes without saying that the political tension in Sudan reached its edge after 5 December 2022 when the Framework Agreement was signed under the sponsorship of regional and international parties claiming that it will restore the civilian leadership to the transitional period and to boost the democratic transformation.
Since then the political forces entered into processes of polarization as the signatories of the Framework Agreement were classified to 3 categories (revolution forces, peace forces and transition forces).
Such classification gave each category varied political rights For instance the forces that announced its reservations on the Framework Agreement or rejected it in principle were classified as obstructing forces to the transition will be subject to isolation and marginalization by its political rivals and their international supporters.
Similarly, the military forces were subject to polarization as the RSF adapted the whole project of the Framework Agreement signatories on top of which is the FFC-CC to the extent that the RSF leaders threaten frankly to punish the SAF and Police Forces if they don’t hand governance to civilian political forces as was the situation before 25 October 2021 coup.
At the same time the FFC-CC spokespersons said that the alternative will be the war if the SAF reject the Framework Agreement which gives the RSF independence and makes it a parallel army to SAF.

Political Tension in Sudan Reached its Edge after 5: December when the Framework Agreement was signed which was alleged that it aimed at restoring the transitional period civilian leadership and boosting democratic transformation

In the early days of the war, mid April, the RSF Commander in Chief, Mohammad Hamdan Daglo spoke to several TV channels about the main objective of the war which is aressting his former colleague, the SAF Commander in Chief describing him as power hunger and corrupt leader who should be brought to justice
It was recognized that Daglo accused two of the Sudanese Islamic Movement of involvement in the war by supporting his rival Al-Burhan.
Then came all the statements of RSF militia in coincidence with the FFC-CC literature which claims that the leadership of the Sudanese Islamic Movement and the remnants of the ousted regime are behind the rejection of SAF to sign the Framework Agreement to hinder the democratic transformation process, and accordingly they should be arrested and brought to justice.
Meanwhile, dozens os Islamic trend members were arrested and tortured to admit that they pushed SAF to erupt the war. The arrests expanded to include retired army and police officers who were accused of cooperation with SAF, the number of whom exceeded 5 thousand according to human rights organizations.
The RSF militia spokespersons added new goals of their war related to what they called the domination of governance by central Sudan communities (they call it 1956:State), so they will isolate those living on the Nile strip and replace them by sons of the marginalized tribes of western Sudan.

Sudan found itself in a regional and international competition arena. Some local forces became part of that competition in which each party is serving its Interests.

The quadratic mechanism i.e. USA, UK, KSA and UAE and the tripartite mechanism I e. AU, IGAD and the UN (which are the parties dominating the political decision in Sudan) failed in easing the tension.
On the contrary it became part of the crisis when it adapted the FFC-CC political vision.
All the endeavors to convince the two mechanisms to play its expected role to organize a roundtable conference for the Sudanese rivals aiming at reaching a unified vision on how to run the transition and the democratic transformation, a matter that increased the doubts that the mechanisms’ parties are endeavoring to benefit from the tensions to pass the special agendas of each.
It is true that each of the quadratic and tripartite mechanisms has its own interests through its influence after the fall of Al-Bashir’s regime. For example, the USA is concerned in Sudan’s geopolitical location within its competition with the expansion of China and Russia in the black continent. Britain (the former colonizer and UNSC Veto member) is concerned to restore its influence in one of its previous colonies in Africa, Saudi Arabia is the top commercial partner of Sudan for years and had the desire to boost this partnership through huge projects in infrastructure and harbors.
Based on the above Sudan found itself in regional and international competition. Some of the local forces became part of that competition to serve this party or that.
Those regional and international forces were not far from what happened on 15 April and this was clear since the third month of the war as media reports affirmed the Western officials expressed fears that the RSF militia might get advanced weapons – particularly anti-aircraft missiles- from Wagner Group which was in good relations with the RSF especially in gold mining. It was said that the Chief of Wagner Group, in his last tour in Africa before being killed, got huge quantities of gold from the RSF militia leaders the understandings of which were in Central African Republic.

The Ongoing War wasn’t to Restore Civilian Rule or Indiginizing the Democracy in Sudan

The circle of accusations expanded recently by the involvement of foreign parties in the war through supplying the RSF militia with arms and mercenaries according to western media reports. The accumulations included African states in the African Sahel such as Tchad and Niger, besides other Middle East countries on top of which is Israel with its old agendas in Sudan.
If we come to determine the “identity” of the war erupted by the rebellion of the RSF we will recognize that it is a mixture of all those agendas together as it included the conflict of the Center and the Margin according to the slogans of the rebels and their supporters which have direct relationship with the civilian forces -:the political incubator of the rebellion -: represented by imposing secularism in describing the relation between the State and the Religion. It is part of regional and international forces which announced its war against the Islamic regime in Sudan. Those forces insist to classify Islamists as terrorists, devoting itself to fight what is known as the political Islam, and insist to engineer the Sudanese community politically, economically and socially, besides restructuring its institutions even through military coups or rebellion.
It is also regional and international Interests to control the huge potentials of Sudan hence controlling its geopolitical location and utilize it in serving its agendas within the international competition.
In short, it is a war between the USA against the expansion of China and Russia influence in Africa. It is a UK war to restore its influence in one of its most important previous colonies after its exiting the European Union. It is the war of France for settling its political scores with Russia and restores its influence in the African Sahel area.
It is the war of some Arab regimes against political Islam in Sudan and its attempts to obtain more influence in Sudan.
It is the war of Israel against The Thee Nos.
It is the war of Sudanese secularists against the Islamic trends in their country.
It is the war of overlapping Agendas which are mixture of all the above and others.
But, for sure, it is not a war to restore the civilian rule or endiginizing democracy in Sudan, but, definitely, it is a war of overlapping agendas war.

God bless Sudan and its people