Showing posts with label TMC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TMC. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 04, 2023

Sudan: Only a united civilian coalition can bring peace

Article at World Politics Review - worldpoliticsreview.com
Written by Yasir Zaidan 
Published Thursday 22 June 2023 - here is a full copy:


Only a United Civilian Coalition Can Bring Peace to Sudan

People chant slogans during a protest in Khartoum, Sudan, Oct. 30, 2021 (AP photo by Marwan Ali).

The current conflict in Sudan between the armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group is a security and humanitarian crisis. But more importantly, it is a political crisis, one that grows out of the failure to build a sustainable democratic transition after the popular uprising that removed former dictator Omar al-Bashir from power in April 2019.


That failure can be traced through the various transitional deals that have been signed and then either ignored or violated since 2019. In that time, the civilian political actors in Sudan’s transition have been unable to overcome their deep divisions, giving free rein to the armed forces under Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the RSF under Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo—known as Hemedti—to seize and now compete for control of the country. Tragically, the same thing is recurring now, meaning that when the guns are finally silenced, Sudan’s civilian political actors will be unable to play a meaningful role in steering the country to a sustainable peace.


Sudan’s first transitional agreement was a power-sharing constitutional declaration between the military and the Forces of Freedom and Change, or FFC, the civilian alliance that led the negotiations with the army after the removal of Bashir’s regime. The declaration laid the groundwork for the formation of a joint military-civilian government whose goal was to ultimately guide Sudan back to civilian rule by 2022. But it failed to achieve the uprisings’ demands because of political disputes between rival groups among the civilian participants.


The FFC represented a broad range of political parties that opposed the Bashir regime as well as rebel groups from Darfur, Blue Nile and Southern Kurdufan. That and its unity gave it a powerful position in leading the uprising that erupted in December 2018 and negotiating with the Transitional Military Council, TMC, once Bashir was deposed. However, differences started to emerge between the FFC’s civilian members and the rebel groups, who criticized the Khartoum-based FFC parties’ decision to begin talks with the TMC before the rebels were able to participate.


After signing a peace agreement with the transitional government in October 2020, representatives of the rebel movements were able to return to Khartoum, where they were incorporated into the transitional governing institutions as political actors. But the distrust that was created within the FFC only increased, due to serious concerns among the rebel groups over how the structures of the power-sharing government benefited the group of parties that negotiated the transitional agreement with the military.


As a result, the FFC split into two factions. The first, known as the FFC-Central Committee, or FFC-CC, compromises the Umma Party, the Unionist Assembly and the Sudanese Congress. The second faction, which included the rebel groups and the Unionist Party, called itself the FFC-Democratic Bloc, or FFC-DB. In addition, the Baathists and communists left the coalition entirely and created a new front called the Radical Alliance. The resulting political disputes combined with the country’s economic deterioration opened the door for the military takeover in October 2021.


Instead of finding a common position to propose a political roadmap out of the current crisis, Sudan’s civilian actors are busy repeating their previous mistakes.


These divisions were exploited and leveraged by Hemedti, who has proved to be a skillful political operator. Hemedti initially sought to inherit Bashir’s political machine, appointing many Bashir loyalists as advisers during the first months of the transition. He also sought the backing of Sudan’s tribal chiefs and traditional institutions by showering them with gifts and financial favors.


But after the military takeover in 2021, Hemedti also sought to mend fences with civilian actors by publicly apologizing for supporting the coup in the months that followed. He subsequently moved closer to the FFC-CC and eventually became an ally. In September 2022, he announced his support for the interim constitutional draft proposed by the FFC-CC to guide the country back to civilian rule, putting him at odds with the armed forces’ position of supporting only initiatives that included all political stakeholders in Sudan and not only the FFC-CC.


Meanwhile, the United Nations-led political process to facilitate talks between the FCC-CC, FCC-DB and the military initiated after the October 2021 military takeover further exacerbated the divisions among Sudan’s civilian factions. The U.N. Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan, or UNITAMS, deliberately designed the talks to exclude other important civilian actors, such as the Resistance Committees—the neighborhood groups that have led Sudan’s pro-democracy movement since 2019—and traditional tribal chiefs, and sidelined the FFC-DB from the outline agreement signed in December 2022.


That agreement ultimately served as the catalyst for the current conflict, because it called for integrating the RSF into the Sudanese armed forces, which has been a critical national security fault line ever since the 2019 uprising. Created during the Bashir regime’s war in Darfur, the RSF subsequently maneuvered between several institutional umbrellas. After the war in Darfur subsided in intensity, Bashir used the RSF to protect against potential military coups by the armed forces. Hemedti used that privileged status to gain control of lucrative commercial interests, including gold mines, front companies and banks. After Bashir’s ouster, the RSF further expanded militarily and financially.


The disagreement over the timeline for integrating the RSF into the armed forces—the military proposed a two-year transition, while Hemedti argued the process should take at least 10 years—intensified pre-existing tensions between the two sides as the deadline for signing the finalized UNITAMS-brokered agreement approached. Soon after the deadline was postponed in April, both forces mobilized their troops in Khartoum, with the fighting beginning on April 15.


But if Hemedti sought to leverage the FFC-CC in his rivalry with al-Burhan in the run-up to the conflict, the FFC-CC had similarly aligned with the RSF in an effort to play the different armed services against each other. In September 2022, for instance, Yasir Arman, an FFC-CC leadership council member, said that “the RSF represents a force to build the national army,” giving the RSF equal institutional status as the armed forces. And since the outbreak of war, the FFC-CC has refused to denounce Hemedti’s move to seize power.


There is now an urgent need to stop the war, which has left at least 900 civilians killed and 1.3 million displaced and risks triggering a regional conflagration. So far, talks between the armed forces and RSF hosted by Saudi Arabia have struggled to achieve more than shaky cease-fires and intermittent humanitarian access. In the meantime, instead of finding a common position to propose a political roadmap out of the current crisis, Sudan’s civilian actors are busy repeating the same mistakes. Several Resistance Committees have announced their withdrawal from the FFC-CC-led Civilian Coalition to Stop the War due to the FFC-CC’s neutral stance in the war as well as its narrative equating the RSF with the armed forces.  


Above all, Sudan urgently needs a new broad national front to correct the errors—in particular, the narrow and divisive political process—that led to the war. To be effective, however, any new political alliance should stand with Sudan’s remaining state institutions and insist that ultimately Sudan’s civilians must decide the fate of their country, for only that will sustainably end the war.


Yasir Zaidan is a doctoral candidate at the Jackson School for International Studies at the University of Washington.


View original: https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/conflict-sudan-crisis-civil-war-democracy-rapid-support-forces/


[Ends]

Sunday, April 30, 2023

What wasn't in Sudan peace talks before April 15?

NOTE from Sudan Watch Editor: I'm in love with Cameron Hudson's brain.

Here is another link to the above video: https://twitter.com/_hudsonc/status/1652661922624405508

Friday, March 13, 2020

Sudan: Getting quick debt relief & credit seems bleak

  • On his return from his recent trip to Washington DC, Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok said that the transitional government will be closing the offices of both Hamas and Hezbollah, designated by the US as terrorist groups.
  • By remaining on the list, Sudan is prevented from accessing the much-need $10bn in aid it was hoping to raise to repair the battered economy.
  • According to professor David Shinn, a former US diplomat and an expert on Sudanese affairs, the US is keeping Sudan on the SST list to see how the transitional government will bring the RSF under its control. 
  • As it will take more than three years to remove Sudan from the SST list, the hope to get immediate debt relief and credit seems bleak. Read more:
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
Sudan needs US support – both diplomatic and economic
Opinion Piece from The Africa Report.com
Published Monday 10 February 2020 09:51, updated Tuesday 11 February 2020 16:10
By Jihad Mashamoun (pictured below) Doctoral candidate of Middle East Politics within the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies of the University of Exeter, England, United Kingdom
The Sudanese government is working hard to get itself removed from the US list of State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) in order to get much-needed investment into the country.

On his return from his recent trip to Washington DC, Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok said that the transitional government will be closing the offices of both Hamas and Hezbollah, designated by the US as terrorist groups.

By remaining on the list, Sudan is prevented from accessing the much-needed $10bn in aid it was hoping to raise to repair the battered economy.

Although Hamdok’s visit to the US was certainly positive – the US agreed to upgrade its diplomatic representation to the ambassador level – removing Sudan from the US list will take longer than the three-year period of the transitional government.

So what are the implications of the US keeping Sudan in its SST list? How could the US help Sudan overcome those obstacles?

From a distance

As the US does not want the bloody crackdown on protesters of 3 June to occur again, Makila James, deputy assistant secretary for East Africa and the Sudans, has informed US House officials that the government is looking at options including sanctions should similar events occur.

That pressured the Transitional Military Council (TMC) to reach an agreement with the opposition. However, the US remains uneasy about the inclusion of the military in the transition process.

That is because the transitional process includes military elements of the former regime of president Omar al-Bashir.

Those elements include Lt. General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, the former chairman of the TMC, and Lt. General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo ‘Hemeti’, former deputy chairman of the TMC and who is the commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

Both military leaders have been implicated in the genocide that took place in Darfur in 2014 [Sudan Watch Ed: stating that genocide took place in Darfur in 2014 is an error, it should read 2004 not 2014 - also, as far as I am aware, genocide in Darfur has not been proven in a court of law. In my view, the Darfur war, reportedly starting in 2003, was a horrific counter-insurgency costing 300,000-400,000 lives and badly affecting and displacing millions of other Darfuris]. Moreover, the independence of Lt. General Hemeti and his RSF from the Sudanese Armed Forces has been a cause of concern US officials, especially since the emptying of the protest site in front of the Sudanese military headquarters on 3 June.

According to professor David Shinn, a former US diplomat and an expert on Sudanese affairs, the US is keeping Sudan on the SST list to see how the transitional government will bring the RSF under its control.

What about the security establishment?

Another point of concern for US officials is the hold of the former regime over the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS), which has been recently revamped into the General Intelligence Services (GIS).

The US included Sudan on the SST list in 1990s even though its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had joint operations with the NISS, which was headed by Salah Abdallah ‘Gosh’ at the time. In 2005, the CIA flew him into its headquarters as a reward for Sudan’s support in detaining suspected militants and providing information on Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda following the 11 September 2001 attacks.

In the 1990s, Sudan invited and hosted Bin Laden. The US had deemed him a threat for his planning of the attack on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The US attack on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in 1998 was a turning point where Sudan abandoned Bin Laden by attempting to hand him over to the CIA.

Thereafter, the Bashir regime decided to work with the US intelligence agencies to repair the relationship between the two countries and to remove Sudan from the SST list.

One of the central individuals who was tasked with supporting ties with the US was the controversial Salah Gosh. He and the Bashir regime helped the CIA in counter-terrorism operations.

With the removal of Salah Gosh from his position as head of the NISS, the US has concerns about its counter-terrorism partner.

On 2 December, Cameron Hudson, who was a former US diplomat and former chief of staff of the George Bush administration, said the US worries that Salah Gosh has supporters who could undermine the country’s reform efforts.

The recent mutiny of the operations unit of the GIS shows that the US’s fears were well founded.

That is because it became apparent that Lt. General Mustafa Abubakr Dambalab, who was appointed as the chief of the GIS, was a supporter of Salah Gosh. 

Salah Gosh founded the operations unit of the NISS in 2005.

Sources say Salah Gosh manipulated the operations unit to mutiny and to try to instigate a coup as Lt. General Hemeti on 13 January 2020.

Sailing into safer waters
As the recent mutiny has shown that the supporters of the former regime will continue to threaten the transition process by creating insecurity, it is apparent that the inclusion of Sudan on the SST list is also threatening the transition process.

As it will take more than three years to remove Sudan from the SST list, the hope to get immediate debt relief and credit seems bleak.

However, to help guide Sudan’s transitional process into safe waters, there are a series of immediate measures that could satisfy the immediate goals of both Sudan and the US:
  • 1.  As fellow Sudanese have understandably great expectations, the US could help Hamdok’s government in managing the expectations of the population by appointing a pro-active ambassador.
  • It is recommended that the ambassador work with both the Sudanese government and the governing Declaration of Freedom and Change Forces party in communicating clearly what the US expects from Sudan.
  • 2.  The US could help address Sudan’s security problems by working with its regional allies to hand over Salah Gosh and other members of the former regime to Sudan so that they can face prosecution for the crimes they committed against the people since 30 June 1989.
  • 3.  While Hamdok’s government has been operating with public support so far, removing fuel and food subsidies to balance the books will undermine it. Therefore, rather than following policies driven by the narrow economic agenda of the World Bank and IMF, the government and the international community could work together in retrieving the billions of dollars that the former regime leaders have stashed outside Sudan.

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Sudan: German President Steinmeier visits Khartoum - Germany involved in UN Missions in Sudan, S. Sudan

German President Steinmeier’s visit boosts Sudan bid against isolation
Report from monitor.co.ug
Dated Saturday, 29 February 2020
Photo: German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s visit to Khartoum this week has become the latest marketing tool for the transitional government to help Sudan out of international isolation.

Mr Steinmeier became the first German President to visit Khartoum since 1985, and is the highest ranked global leader to visit Sudan since the ouster of Omar al-Bashir last April.

His two-day trip from Thursday has left authorities excited and hoping it could further improve the country's image.

Sudan is still struggling to get off the US sanctions list.

In Khartoum, the German leader met Abdul Fattah Al-Burhan, the leader of the Transitional Sovereign Council, as well as Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok.

“I am here to say that we are happy with the changes in Sudan and public opinion is interested in that as well,” Steinmeier said.

He urged the international community to help the country to rebuild.

“We know the difficult economic situation and Sudan needs access to international financial institutions,” Steinmeier told a joint press conference with Premier Hamdok on Thursday.

“I assured Hamdok that Germany can be relied on and pointed out the economic potentials…Germany is ready to support the peace process.”

The German leader had visited Burkina Faso and Kenya this week, promising support for development and trade.

Germany, for example, has announced that it will increase its contribution towards fighting locust invasion in East Africa, providing an additional $18.7 million to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, increasing its total commitment to $21.99 million.

But in Sudan, where food shortage and hard economic times have been felt just as much, the problem is the restriction to international assistance. 

Officially, the US lists Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism and a USA Court has issued a verdict demanding that Khartoum pays families of victims of a US warship bombed in Yemen in 2001. The terror merchants of that incident were reportedly trained in Sudan, where then al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden was living in the 1980s.

President Steinmeier’s visit indicated thawing relations between Germany and Sudan, which had been in a lull for the three decades of Omar al-Bashir’s rule.

Prime Minister Hamdok said Berlin’s decision to lift the development ban on Sudan establishes strong ties.

- - -

Germany Extends Involvement in UN Missions in Sudan, S. Sudan Until 2018
Report from Sputnik News
Dated 02 November 2015, 14:46

Bundeswehr's involvement in the United Nations–African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), and the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) will be extended until the end of 2017, maintaining a regular level of staff, up to 50 soldiers at each point, according to government spokesman Steffen Seibert.

BERLIN (Sputnik) — The German Cabinet has decided to extend the Bundeswehr's involvement in the United Nations–African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), and the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) until the end of 2017, government spokesman Steffen Seibert said on Wednesday.

Earlier this week, an independent inquiry revealed that the UN peacekeeping mission had certain shortcomings in South Sudan, and failed to properly protect hundreds of civilians. Following the inquiry's publication, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki moon pledged to introduce additional measures to improve the mission and bolster its protection capabilities.

"In both cases, the German part amounted largely to guiding and advising tasks, in both cases it will be extended until the end of 2017, maintaining a regular level of staff, up to 50 soldiers at each point," Seibert said.

According to him, the Bundeswehr mission in Sudan would remain part of long-term efforts for "a lasting settlement of the conflict and stabilization of peace consolidation in the region."

UNAMID was deployed to Sudan's western region of Darfur in 2007, which has been engaged in an armed conflict between rebel groups and the government of Sudan since 2003. The rebels accused authorities of oppressing Darfur's non-Arab population, to which the government initially responded by ethnic cleansing.

South Sudan, which separated from Sudan in 2011, has been engaged in an armed ethnic conflict since 2013, when President Salva Kiir said that a military coup had been planned in the country, pointing the blame squarely at rebel leader Rijek Mashar. Apart from killing scores of people, the conflict has put the country on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.

UNMISS was deployed to South Sudan in July 2011, initially for a year, but its deployment was later extended.

- - -

PHOTOS: German Air Force Returns From AMIS Mission In Sudan (March 2006)
LANDSBERG, GERMANY - MARCH 24: A German Transall C-160 Military plane parks on an airfield after the return from a mission in Sudan, Africa, on March 24, 2006 at the airbase in Penzing near Landsberg, Germany. The mission in Sudan called "African Union Mission in Sudan" (AMIS), and is the support to move 500 soldiers from Tschad to Sudan. (Photos by Jan Pitman/Getty Images)
LANDSBERG, GERMANY - MARCH 24: German soldiers stand in front of a Transall C-160 military plane after their return from a mission in Sudan, Africa, on March 24, 2006 at the airbase in Penzing near Landsberg, Germany. The mission in Sudan called "African Union Mission in Sudan" (AMIS), and is the support to move 500 soldiers from Tschad to Sudan. (Photo by Jan Pitman/Getty Images)


Photo: LANDSBERG, GERMANY - MARCH 24, 2006: German soldiers stand in front of a Transall C-160 military plane after their return from a mission in Sudan, Africa, on March 24, 2006 at the airbase in Penzing near Landsberg, Germany. The mission in Sudan called "African Union Mission in Sudan" (AMIS), and is the support to move 500 soldiers from Tschad to Sudan. (Photo by Jan Pitman/Getty Images) © AP Photo / Jan Pitman

- - -

FURTHER READING

Sudan Watch - March 23 2006
Germany approves peacekeeping troops to Sudan

Sudan Watch - December 15, 2006
German parliament gives green light to extending Sudan mission

Sudan Watch - May 16, 2005
German military observers fail to get visas for Sudan
Deployment of German military observers to southern Sudan may be delayed. So far, the Sudanese government has issued entry visas to hardly any of the soldiers who are supposed to help with monitoring the peace agreement in the African country as of mid-May.

According to the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the reason for the delay is occasionally seen in the pressure exerted by German diplomacy.

Germany had pilloried the human rights violations in the crisis region of Darfur early and contributed to making the brutal civil war an issue in the UN Security Council, which adopted sanctions.

The UN in New York has now noticed that other Western members of the UN mission have not received the entry visas necessary for southern Sudan, either.

This makes it difficult for the UN to station 10,000 soldiers in Africa's largest country as soon as possible.

One of a total of some 50 German soldiers has meanwhile arrived in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, another four are in Nairobi, Kenya, for preparations. - BBC via Sudan Tribune Berlin, Germany, May 15, 2005

Wednesday, March 04, 2020

Sudan: Scepticism whether Bashir will be given to ICC (David Pilling)

  • There is scepticism about whether military leaders will really give Omar al-Bashir up to the courts 
  • Seeing Omar al-Bashir on trial in The Hague would be a signal that the revolution can endure
  • Mr Hamdok lacks the two things he needs most: power and money. He is beholden to the military men he is quietly trying to nudge aside, who decide what finance he can access and what laws he can pass
From The Financial Times - www.ft.com
Opinion Editorial by DAVID PILLING
Published Wednesday 12 February 2020
Title: Sudan’s revolutionaries need help to avoid the ‘Myanmar trap’

The peaceful revolution that overthrew Sudan’s dictator Omar al-Bashir last April was one of the most uplifting if under-appreciated events of 2019. This year, it has all but slipped off the international radar screen. 

At a time when democracy is under pressure globally, millions of ordinary Sudanese took to the streets for months to demand the end of a dictatorship that had ground their faces in the dirt for 30 years. This was the purest expression of a popular pushback against autocracy that has shaken leaderships around the world, from Algeria to Hong Kong. Now its revolution is under threat. 

The country is bogged down in a perilously long three-and-half-year transition to full democracy. People are frustrated with long fuel lines and a dwindling economy. The only things upwardly mobile in Sudan these days are prices. With Mr Bashir gone, the one element that united a cacophony of opposition voices and rebel groups has disappeared into a small cell. 

Worse, civilian leaders now find themselves sharing power with the very military men they rose up against. Some are calling it the “Myanmar trap”, a reference to another revolution that ousted one military regime only to see it replaced by another — albeit one camouflaged by the once-flattering form of Aung San Suu Kyi. The comparison with Egypt is also apt. There, people toppled one autocracy only to see another rise up in its place.

In Sudan, the civilian nominally in charge is not a world-famous former political prisoner but rather a quiet technocrat. Abdalla Hamdok, 64, commands respect on the Sudanese streets, where he is seen as an honest broker. But that support could quickly trickle away. 

Mr Hamdok lacks the two things he needs most: power and money. He is beholden to the military men he is quietly trying to nudge aside, who decide what finance he can access and what laws he can pass. 

Despite these constraints, some things have been achieved. Mr Hamdok managed to repeal a draconian public order law that controlled how women dressed and behaved in public. Many Islamists have been purged. 

This week, there was another good sign. The government intimated it might allow Mr Bashir to stand trial on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur, levelled by the International Criminal Court. There is rightly scepticism about whether military leaders — implicated in the same events — will really give him up. 

It is possible that Mr Bashir’s trial will take place in Khartoum, and not The Hague, in some sort of compromise. Even then, the risk for Sudan’s military leaders is that his testimony could expose their own complicity. 

If Mr Bashir does stand trial, it would send a powerful signal that — against all the odds — Sudan’s revolution really can just about hold. Justice for Mr Bashir could be part of a broader effort at international re-engagement aimed at removing Sudan from Washington’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Unless progress is made on that, Khartoum has no hope of writing off $60bn in past debts, or of unlocking essential new finance. 

This month, General Abdel-Fattah Burhan, head of the 11-member sovereign council that runs the country, set tongues wagging by holding a previously unthinkable meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. If that was a sign Sudan is prepared to break with Arab orthodoxy, Gen Burhan will be able to press home his point when he visits Washington in coming weeks. 

Something may be afoot. No removal from the state sponsor of terrorism list is possible until Sudan pays compensation to relatives of those killed in attacks allegedly organised from Khartoum. Those include 17 US sailors killed and 39 injured in a 2000 attack on the USS Cole, as well as 200 people killed in 1998 explosions outside US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. 

For a whole generation of western officials, Sudan equates to genocide and terrorism. Now the country has a chance to change that perception. Yet without outside help, including financial, the risk is that its democratic experiment will slip backwards. In the age of President Donald Trump, it has no obvious champion in Washington. Nor do Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states currently propping up Sudan have much interest in seeing a vibrant democracy take hold. 

Sudan’s revolution is still alive, but it can be crushed at any time. After decades of dictatorship, institutions are weak. The military and the Islamists are waiting for their chance. With encouragement from outside, Sudan could yet surprise everyone by installing genuine democracy. Without it, the path of Egypt or Myanmar beckons.

Follow David Pilling with myFT and on Twitter
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2020. All rights reserved.

Monday, March 02, 2020

In Sudan, Hemedti leads the fray (Gérard Prunier)

  • In reality, it is Hemedti, the brutal and cunning general who organised the harsh crackdown in Khartoum last June, who wields the real power in Sudan, writes Gerard Prunier
  • After arresting Bashir, Hemedti became vice-president of the Transitional Military Council and was effectively its real boss
  • The RSF's military and technical equipment in fact come from the United Arab Emirates
  • The overthrown regime seemed to embody all the mistakes of the past. Read full story:
In Sudan, General Hemedti leads the fray
Analysis from The New Arab - www.alaraby.co.uk
Dated 5 February 2020
By Gérard Prunier (Former chief of the Centre français des études éthiopiennes in Addis-Abeba, member of the Centre d’études des mondes africains of Paris and author of several articles and books on Sudan)

Since the overthrow and arrest of President Omar al-Bashir on 10 April last year, there has been a fragile cohabitation between civil society and the semi-privatised "armed forces". 

Indeed Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok, who represents the civilian side of the set-up, told a visiting US congressional delegation in Khartoum in January that "the civil-military partnership in Sudan could serve as a model for other countries." 

The idea, far from just being a piece of triumphalist braggadocio, raises the question of what has been going on in Sudan in recent months.

A return to civil society
After 25 years of dictatorship, the Islamist regime in Khartoum had nothing more to offer than further failures and mounting corruption. The economic crash was the last straw. In 2018, the price of a kilo of lentils went up by 225 percent, rice by 169 percent, bread 300 percent, and fuel 30 percent. 

There was no cooking gas, or even running water. At the same time, the 2018 budget of Sudanese pounds (SDG) 173 bn (about $27 bn) allocated nearly SDG 24 bn to the military and security sectors, but only just over SDG 5 bn to education and less than SDG 3 bn to health.

Civil society responded to this descent into hell with a spontaneous mobilisation whose roots went back to October 2012, and which now gathered momentum. Workers' groups began setting up professional organisations.

Today there are 17 of them, federated under the umbrella Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA). This clandestine unionism operated with an organisational rigour worthy of the pre-1917 Leninists, but without any particular ideology apart from an embryonic democratism and a rejection of violence.


The slogan "Silmiyya!" (Peaceful!) was to become the rallying cry of the protestors. Political parties which had become more or less forgotten under the 30 years of military-Islamic dictatorship regained at least a little strength, brought together in the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC).

Despite its extraordinary popularity, this democratic movement had three weak points: it was very urban in nature, it grouped essentially the Awlad al-Beled (the Arabs of the central provinces), and apart from the trade unionists of the SPA, it was very divided.

A general backed by the UAE
The situation at the beginning of 2019 was thus somewhat special. The Islamic-military regime was no longer Islamic, and the regular army had been set into competition with paramilitary forces which had become autonomous when then-President Bashir deployed them into overseas conflicts. The dispatch to Yemen of the "volunteers" of the Rapid Support Force (RSF) by their commander, Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Daglo aka Hemedti, was crucial.

After arresting Bashir, Hemedti became vice-president of the Transitional Military Council and was effectively its real boss, rather than its official president, Gen. Abdel Fatah Abderrahman Burhan. Significantly, these volunteers are better armed than Burhan's regular army. The RSF's military and technical equipment in fact come from the United Arab Emirates.

Cunning, brutal and intelligent, if little educated, Hemedti became a millionaire through the "muscular" exploitation of the gold mines in western Sudan. He was the Janjaweed militia chief in Darfur, where he committed massive violence before overthrowing President Bashir, who saw him as his protector. 

Hence the ambiguity of the situation: was this a military coup d'état, or a democratic revolution? 

The popular uprising was a mixture of jamboree, open-ended political forum and social solidarity display. Everybody was looking after children - there are lots of them - women were everywhere, and the people came to the capital from afar. The basic slogans: "Silmiya!" (Peaceful!), "Hurriya!" (Freedom!), "Thawra!" (Revolution!), "Didd al-haramiyya!" (Down with the thieves!) and "Madaniyya!" (Civilian!). 

A camp, a festival, a space for joy and celebration, the sit-in was essentially revolutionary.

But while some soldiers were fraternising with the crowd, others, especially in the provinces, were killing or injuring the supporters of change. Those who opened fire on the demonstrators were not soldiers of the regular army, the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), which was doing its best to protect them. It was either mercenaries of the RSF who came from Darfur, or an operations unit of the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) - the secret services, set up by Salah Gosh.

The uprising in Darfur had already destroyed the image of a "homogenous nation" led by a radical version of Islam, and had exposed the reality of a mafia regime which had deviated into illegal commerce during its dream petrol period between 1999 and 2011.

The "deep state" created by the Islamists had established itself as the ideological - and financial - flipside of a Sudan which had become phoney. For many in Sudan, the events of 2019 were an occasion to go back over developments since independence in 1956. Everything was brought out in the popular debates: the "civil war" with the disparate South, the coups, the empty rhetoric of a democracy lived in fits and starts, Islamism as the magic solution, the colonialism of the centre over all the outlying areas.

Even Arabism did not escape criticism. In this amazing thirst for demystification, the overthrown regime seemed to embody all the mistakes of the past.

Symptoms of the nostalgic revolution
This "nostalgic revolution" has been very ill understood by the international community. There are, of course, parallels with the various "Arab springs" - the same hostility to dictatorship, the same aspiration to democracy, but with no illusions about political Islam, which aroused obvious hostility among the protestors, no doubt because of Sudan's ethnic heterogeneity.

The killer General Hemedti hails from the outlying Darfur area and he has rallied to the RSF flag many soldiers straying from the wars of the Sahel-Chadians, Nigerians, Central Africans, and even some Boko Haram deserters.

He does not harbour hostility to Islam because it is too much part of Sudanese culture to be rejected. But the Islamists who prefer the Islamist "deep state" to their Sudanese homeland have lost control of the population. That is why the attempt by the Saudis and the UAE to preserve an Islamist regime without the Muslim Brotherhood has little chance of success.

Clean up at the NISS barracks
The UAE leader, Sheikh Mohammad Bin Zayed (MBZ), realised this more swiftly than his Saudi "allies", as indeed did General Hemedti. When on 14 January semi-demobilised elements of the NISS mutinied in two of the barracks where they were cooling their heels, Hemedti's reaction was immediate: his men attacked the barracks, and fighting went on late into the night. 

The mutineers had just learned that their operations unit, which was involved in racketeering, kidnapping and illegal taxation, had been disbanded.

The NISS groups got the worst of it, and their dead were written off. But the General had to make a trip to Abu Dhabi to explain to MBZ precisely what he was up to. He may be the UAE's ally in Sudan, but he is far from being a passive tool in the region, as MBZ realised when Hemedti declined to send reinforcements to Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar in Libya, stalled outside Tripoli without being able to take the city. 

The Emiratis were reduced to recruiting "security guards" through small ads using Black Shield Security Services, a UAE front company.

Another example of the Darfur General's autonomy came on 11 January, when groups linked to the Islamist "deep state" tried to organise antigovernment demonstrations at Wad Madani, in central Sudan. Hemedti did nothing to help them, and they had to pay unemployed agricultural workers to swell their ranks.  

So was Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok justified in portraying civil-military relations in Sudan as a model to the Americans? Half. By "military" one means Hemedti, because the regular army no longer controls the situation, either politically or militarily. When there were negotiations in Juba with the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (a guerrilla faction which still exists in Kordofan, in the south of Sudan), it was Hemedti who took charge of the talks and won SPLM-North agreement to a framework accord which may be ratified on 14 February.

PM accused of sluggishness
Under the power-sharing agreement signed in Khartoum on 5 July last year, there will be no elections until 2021, and those involved in the current transition will not be allowed to stand. 

PM Abdallah Hamdok is certainly doing what he can. But he is doing it at a pace which is irritatingly slow for a population which had struggled with astonishing determination until June 2019. He has only just dismissed the foreign minister, whose incompetence was a drag on Sudanese diplomacy, resurgent after 30 years of paralysis and corruption.

It remains for the World Bank to be begged for aid which the Americans continue to block on the basis of sanctions imposed earlier on the Islamist regime, and which are now obsolete.

Hemedti appears to maintain correct, but not warm, relations with the prime minister. He has talked to old political parties such as the Ummah of Sadeq al-Mahdi, and more discreetly with others. His men are involved in distributing free food and medicine. Nowadays he recruits his soldiers not just from his native Darfur, but also from among the Awlad al-Beled, the inhabitants of the country's central Nile Valley regions.

What about the people of Darfur, whose relatives he may have massacred? They are queueing up outside his offices in Khartoum. "At least he's someone we know, we know how to handle him. And it would be nice to have one of our own in the presidency, after having been colonised." 

How far will the camel trader turned militia chief go? 

People may object to his lack of education, and to his non-Sudanese origins, but that has not prevented him becoming a key player on the national and regional scenes.

Gerard Prunier is a French academic and historian specialising in the Horn of Africa.
This article was originally published by our partners Orient XXI
Join the conversation: @The_NewArab
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.