Washington — U.S. think tanks are scrambling to theorize the future of the ongoing power struggle in Sudan between army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Rapid Support Forces commander Mohamed Hamdan Daglo (Hemedti), and discuss the nature of the U.S. role in future Sudanese scenarios.
Since the overthrow of former President Omar al-Bashir in 2019, the United States has lifted economic sanctions on Sudan and encouraged the IMF and World Bank to resume its support. It also removed it from its list of "pro-terrorist" countries and supported the political process aimed at democratic transition and the handover of power to civilian forces.
Observers say Washington was surprised by the outbreak of fighting between the Sudanese military sides, after it backed the framework agreement, which stipulated the start of a political process that would transfer power to civilians within two years.
Al Jazeera Net monitored the readings of American research centers for the rapid developments in Sudan as follows:
Battles in Sudan continue for the tenth day amid fears of regional expansion (Anatolia)
Warning of regional expansion of fighting
The US Institute of Peace's (USIP) Red Sea Working Group has previously warned that war in any country in the region carries the risk of spreading instability through the flow of refugees across borders and the expansion of humanitarian crises.
Sudan currently hosts hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Tigray region of neighbouring Ethiopia. Chad and Egypt have already closed their borders with Sudan, suggesting that regional leaders believe these clashes could extend further.
Susan Stegant, director of the Institute's Africa Program, pointed out that it will be important in the coming days to pay attention to any new alliances and rearrange the map of alliances in the region, focusing on the positions of Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia and South Sudan in particular.
In Stegant's view, if the fighting continues and peace efforts or a long humanitarian truce are unsuccessful, the SAFF and RSF will need supply lines, and regional governments with vested interests in Sudan may be tempted to throw their weight behind one side.
The expert called on Washington to intervene quickly and urgently at the highest levels, whether directly with the warring parties or with neighboring countries that have influence and interests. Investing in negotiations today will not only save lives, but will be less costly than waiting longer.
In the near term, Stegant argues that any U.S. diplomatic engagement on Sudan must include solid plans that reflect awareness of the balance of power. At the same time, commitments to Sudan's aspirations for a democratic, civilian-led government must be emphasized.
Illusions of Democratic Transition
Cameron Hudson, an Africa expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), says Sudan's democratic transition is on hold indefinitely. "The civilian politicians who are supposed to negotiate with military commanders on the terms of the transition have been silenced; the political agreement that was supposed to pave the way for a return to civilian rule is highly questionable, and the idea of salvaging the civilian transition seems a distant possibility unless security reform is completed."
Hudson said there is very little indication that the warring parties are currently open to external mediation. Washington's top priority appears to be to ensure that neighboring states and regional actors do not take sides in the conflict and decide to intervene. This could quickly turn this spiral into a more costly regional conflict.
Washington may wield the most leverage, but the most it can do now is work alongside Saudi Arabia and the UAE through back channels to pressure the parties to stop the fighting, allow humanitarian access and evacuate civilians caught in urban gunfire.
Deputy State Department Spokesperson, Vidant Patel: On April 22, 2023, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was at the State Department building where he closely observed the evacuation of U.S. personnel from our embassy in Khartoum, Sudan. pic.twitter.com/jDpN3FPQ7U
— U.S. State Department (@USAbilAraby) April 24, 2023
Limited U.S. Influence
Alex de Waal, advisor to the African Union's high-level panel on Sudan and South Sudan (2009-2013), argues in a study published by the Quincy Center that for the Biden administration, Sudan has never been a sufficient priority to push its allies in the Middle East to support democracy in that country.
Eighteen months ago, Burhan and Hemedti launched a joint coup d'état, jailing civilian leaders, and the two generals were confident that their backers in the region would marginalize any strong U.S. reaction. Washington supported the "tripartite" mediation to restore the democratic transition, but it was nothing more than a marginal position.
Regional states have had a bigger and more effective role, and each country has its own policy; Egypt supports Burhan, while the UAE leans toward Hemedti. But, in de Waal's view, none of them wants a war that would cause millions of refugees, destroy their investments and cause chaos in their backyard.
Russia has ties to the RSF, but it has a greater interest in keeping Egypt by its side. Ten years ago, China and the United States agreed that they had complementary interests in Sudan. But there is no doubt that the United States has lost much influence over the past decade. Tragically, it seems to have codified its diplomacy as well, leaving Africa and the Sudan adrift.
Former US envoy Jeffrey Feltman calls for empowering resistance committees supporting civilian rule (French)
Demand investment in civil forces
Jeffrey Feltman, an expert at the Brookings Institution who previously served as the U.S. special envoy for the Horn of Africa, argues that the greatest damage to the Sudanese people, to the integrity of Sudan as a sovereign state, to the security of Sudan's neighbors, and even to international peace and security, is to allow negotiations between the belligerents to reach another internationally backed settlement based on power-sharing. "At least for now it should be clear that Burhan and Hemedti are not reformers, and that they will never be reformed," Feltman said.
He argues that a ceasefire "based on power-sharing among warlords" will not be stable. The Sudanese people's aspirations for democracy and civilian rule cannot be easily ignored, as even at the height of the partnership between Burhan and Hemedti, the "brute force" of the DRCs was not defeated.
So far, Sudanese civilians have faced a united front of Burhan and Hemedti. Assuming this front survives, it is conceivable that the civilian authority will be able to confront a security apparatus that may be divided, destroyed, and less able or willing to impose its rule, and such an outcome may be unlikely, but it is the only glimmer of hope one can find in this "horrific tragedy."
Sanctions will not restrain generals
Michelle Gavin, an Africa expert at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and former ambassador to the Republic of Botswana from 2011 to 2014, wrote on the Council's website, "History has shown that our tools to influence Sudanese actors are not as powerful as we would like, but they can have some impact especially when we work in concert with others. "It's somewhat too late to imagine that targeted sanctions can rein in generals, but policymakers can no longer find reasons not to impose costs on perpetrators."
However, Gavin says, "It can be difficult to reach a serious multilateral consensus. While the collapse of the state in Sudan is undesirable for any of the many external actors with interests at stake, and the United Nations, the Arab League, and the African Union have urged the parties to the conflict to stop, both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF have external backers who want their preferred entity to win."
Even as U.S. diplomats work to dissuade other powers from pouring more fuel on the fire engulfing Sudan, Gavin says, "time and effort must be devoted to raising the voices and demands of Sudanese civilians who overthrew Omar al-Bashir's government and have not stopped trying to reconstitute their government or call for justice, who will resist efforts to divide Sudan along ethnic lines, and who will object to deals that mortgage the country's future to wealthy outside powers willing to tip the military balance."
"In the midst of rising smoke, it is difficult to find a better direction for the future in the near term. These sounds can help determine the way towards it."
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's comments (left) on clashes in Sudan have drawn criticism (Reuters)
Sudan's U.S. Responsibility
Justin Lynch, a researcher and analyst of African affairs at Foreign Policy, criticizes Washington's policies, which he believes have stimulated competition between Hemedti and Burhan to build their power, especially after the adoption of a policy of security sector reform in Sudan, which ensures that the two men are placed under civilian control, "which was not in the interest of either of them." Both generals have publicly committed to reform and democracy, but it seems that the only ones who believed them were U.S. and U.N. officials.
Once the current crisis is over, there must be reckoning and accountability because U.S. policy has not only failed to achieve democracy, but has contributed to Sudan's collapse.
Lynch ridiculed the naivety of the U.S. stance toward Sudan, recalling what Secretary of State Antony Blinken repeated once the fighting began on April 15: "It's a fragile situation. "But this is a real opportunity to finally move forward with a civilian-led democratic transition, which we and other countries are trying to promote."