Foreign Policy: What happens in Sudan will extend its effects to the whole region

The fall of the regime of President Omar al-Bashir in Sudan - following a popular uprising that resulted in a military coup - has put an end to an era in the Horn of Africa characterized by tyranny of rulers, researchers said on international issues.

Michael Ould Maryam, assistant professor of international relations at Boston University and fellow Alden Young, assistant professor of African-American studies at the University of California, believes what happens in Sudan will not remain a prisoner of the East African country's borders but will extend to the whole region.

In their joint article in the US magazine Foreign Policy, they question whether Khartoum will become "the center of the new African order or a trait of the Gulf states."

Gulf and Horn of Africa
The two writers' views revolve around the conflict of interest between the countries surrounding the Horn of Africa, especially the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. And the two largest entities in the continent: the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority for the Development of East Africa (IGAD).

The article, in its narrative and clarifying Kabyte's point of view, raises the question of what the next phase of developments in the Horn of Africa will bear and whether it portends a new, more democratic system based on a common basis of national sovereignty and collective security, or will result in a " Owes its credit to the existence of external regional powers. "

In particular, Sudan is described as a "mini world" in which the greatest conflict is raging towards the re-formulation of the regional system, with its implications for what is to come.

On one side of the conflict lies an alliance of African States, which is shared by the African Union and IGAD. On the other side are the royal regimes in the oil-rich Gulf states.

The countries of the Horn of Africa have been under the yoke of tyrannical regimes since the last fall of the cold war when the United States and the former Soviet Union were seeking to dominate the region by arming dictators.

Generation of tyrants
Then the 1990s saw the emergence of a new generation of tyrants, the article said. In Sudan, Bashir took office there in 1989 on the ruins of an elected government. Shortly thereafter, the "guerrilla leaders" took power in Ethiopia and Eritrea. At the end of the 1990s, the ruling Popular Rally for Progress (PPP) party controlled the transition of power in Djibouti from one president to another.

The researchers say the United States did nothing to stop the tide of the new generation of tyrants. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, they began to help them and incite them to fight terrorism.

The old system cracked
The "old regional order" began to crack in the past three years. In Ethiopia, Prime Minister Abe Ahmed installed a wave of popular protests motivated by reform. He released thousands of political prisoners, freed press freedom and ended two decades of rivalry with his neighbor, Eritrea.

In Sudan, the waves of the popular revolution flooded the "tyrant who spent the longest reign in the region." However, the political changes in the two countries, Ethiopia and Sudan, which are the largest, strongest and most economically important in the region, will have repercussions on Eritrea, Djibouti and the Republic of South Sudan.

According to the article, the influence of the United States under the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump has ebbed in Africa, especially the Horn of Africa and along the waterways adjacent to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

This has allowed Washington's competitors and new allies to fill the void, which sought to find a foothold in the "sensitive" maritime area, especially from forces in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

"With calm and perseverance," the African Union and IGAD led the emerging Gulf-led regime in the Horn of Africa. For two years, the two African organizations have sought to promote dialogue and cooperation on issues of concern to the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea, including the issue of Gulf intervention.

Clarity of conflict
The researchers believe that the conflict in Sudan has become clear. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi stand side by side with the Transitional Military Council, and provided $ 3 billion in financial support. Eritrea and Egypt joined the Saudi-Saudi axis.

On the other side of the equation, the African Union and the IGAD have sided with the Democratic Popular Movement in Sudan, pushing the military to hand over power to a transitional civilian government.

The article points out that events in Sudan will probably determine the future of the Horn of Africa for one or more decades. If the military junta clings to power, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi will ensure an important political and military ally and will be in a position to choose those in power in that region of the African continent, impose foreign policy priorities on their countries and abort any attempts at democratic transformation.

However, the authors conclude by stressing that if the African Union and IGAD can take care of the transition of power in Sudan to a civilian government, they will set the rules of a completely different regional system "a system capable of establishing peace, achieving development and establishing an accountable government."