Keys to Resolving the Sudan War (1-2)

There is an undeniable truth: the current conflict in Sudan has deep historical and political roots. These include the origins of armed conflicts, the unstable relationship between military and political forces, and the role of successive regimes. However, major international and regional powers also have a significant hand in fueling and prolonging the war, viewing Sudan as a gateway to Africa and a strategic point on the Red Sea.

Israel, too, has a keen interest in Sudan. It’s worth recalling what Haaretz revealed, that officials in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government explored the possibility of a deal to release hostages in Gaza. This deal proposed allowing the Hamas leader, the martyr Yahya Sinwar, to relocate to Sudan.

All these intertwined issues have placed Sudan at the center of growing international attention. The geopolitical dimensions of this war are influenced by Sudan’s strategic location and its impact on the region. Geography dictates that there will be significant short- and long-term repercussions on regional security, with effects on the Horn of Africa, rebel movements in the area, displacement and refugees, water security, and the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. There is also the possibility of new alliances forming or shifts in the regional balance of power.

Strategic Geographical Location

Sudan’s geography gives it immense importance both regionally and internationally. It shares borders with seven Arab and African countries, and perhaps one of the most strategic factors is its eastern coastline on the Red Sea.

This exceptional location grants Sudan substantial geopolitical importance for several reasons. The Red Sea has long been a battleground for international power struggles throughout history. With a long coastline, Sudan is part of the global trade route through which oil and essential goods pass, making the country a key player in international maritime security and trade.

Sudan also serves as a bridge connecting North Africa to sub-Saharan Africa, enhancing its role as a trade and transport hub between Arab and African nations. Additionally, Sudan is rich in natural resources such as oil, gold, gum arabic, agriculture, and livestock.

The Blue Nile, one of the world’s most active rivers, flows through Sudan for 650 kilometers, providing about 85% of the Nile’s fresh water. This makes Sudan a vital part of the region’s water security equation.

Strategically located at the heart of Africa and close to Gulf markets, Sudan represents a gateway for investment and trade routes. It serves as a vital transit point for land and sea transport networks, making it a potential logistical hub for exporting African goods to the world.

The war between the Sudanese National Army and the rebellious Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has exposed the shortsightedness of several neighboring countries. Some have provided logistical support to the rebels and their distant backers, failing to realize that stability in Sudan means stability for them, and the reverse is true.

These countries, which have become tools for international schemes targeting not only Sudan but the entire region, don’t seem to understand that their regimes are fragile, built of glass, and may one day be shattered. Their role in the current Sudanese war is negative, ranging from bad to worse. Despite their tactical, rather than strategic, positions, they are playing a dangerous game with the RSF, hoping it can defeat the Sudanese army. This short-term thinking undermines a long-term strategy that could ensure regional stability, contrary to the goals of international powers looking to exploit the region.

Sudan has always played a key role in regional stability. When stable, it helps stabilize its neighbors, especially in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel-Sahara region.

The African Union (AU) was expected to play a significant role in resolving the Sudanese crisis. Instead, it has become little more than a public relations institution, benefiting only those in power within its structures, while politically aligning with specific countries connected to international forces financing its activities. The absence of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who once funded the AU, is sorely felt.

The Sudanese government has openly accused the AU of being biased in favor of the RSF, with its positions reflecting this bias since the war began, and even before. The AU has repeatedly failed to address the continent’s most pressing issues, including the recent crisis in Niger, where it sided with one party, aligning with international forces eyeing Niger’s resources.

The major issue is a lack of trust, or perhaps mutual respect, between Sudan and the AU, exacerbated by the AU’s decision to suspend Sudan’s membership in October 2021. This decision was made following the breakdown of the political partnership between the military and the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) after the fall of President Omar al-Bashir in April 2019.

The AU adopted the FFC’s narrative and considered it a military coup, necessitating the suspension of Sudan’s membership. A high-ranking military official in the AU revealed that the decision by AU Peace and Security Council Secretary-General, former Chadian Foreign Minister Moussa Faki, was made without following institutional procedures. The AU cannot answer why the United Nations recognizes General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s authority, allowing him to represent Sudan at the General Assembly, yet the AU does not.

This suspension, regardless of its context, remains an obstacle to any mediation efforts the AU could undertake, which, in theory, should be the body most equipped to understand the crisis’s complexities.

In early October, coinciding with Egypt’s presidency of the AU Peace and Security Council, a delegation visited Sudan. Although Sudan accepted the visit, possibly due to Egypt’s current leadership role, the mission failed due to the ongoing suspension, which hampered the delegation’s activities.

No joint statement was issued at the end of the visit, which should have clarified points of agreement. Instead, the AU delegation released a press statement, while General al-Burhan made strong statements against the AU.

The legal frameworks within the United Nations Charter and the AU’s protocol clash with the wishful thinking of AU officials concerning the Sudanese crisis, bolstering Sudan’s position. Article 52, paragraph 3, of the UN Charter states that the Security Council encourages peaceful resolution of regional disputes through regional organizations, but only at the request of the concerned states, or if referred by the Security Council itself.

Therefore, the request made by the “Taqaddum” coordination group, led by Hamdok, inviting the AU to intervene under the pretext of protecting civilians, is neither correct nor legal. Even the U.S. envoy retracted this, attributing it to “Taqaddum.”