The conflict that occurred in Sudan between the armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on April 15, 2023, was not primarily driven by ideological or military factors. While personal ambitions and authoritarian tendencies were among many factors that pushed towards armed confrontation, the most influential factor in the conflict was foreign intervention. This influence was evident even before the onset of armed conflict.
Looking at the emergence of the Sudanese revolution, which overthrew President Omar al-Bashir's regime, it is clear that foreign influence played a significant role in these events. The United States, under the "creative chaos" theory aimed at shaping a new reality in the Middle East, did not exclude Sudan from this process for several reasons. Chief among them is Sudan's strategic location, which the U.S. considers crucial for its presence and interests in Africa. Additionally, securing its allies on the Red Sea and keeping the region away from international power struggles are important considerations for the U.S.
The UN Mission Did Not Remain Neutral: It Supported the Civilian Faction of the Government Over the Military, Complicating the Situation
The Bashir regime, supported by Islamists in Sudan, was a major concern for successive U.S. administrations, especially following the rise of Islamists in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Gaza in Palestine. This made the U.S. perceive the Sudanese model, which at one point aimed to unite Arab and Islamic peoples through the Arab and Islamic Popular Congress, as a threat that needed to be dismantled. The U.S. dedicated all its resources to achieving this goal and succeeded.
The External Manufacturing of the Revolution
Given the current reality, the circumstances of the Sudanese revolution, and its daily events, we can touch on the truth of the external manufacturing of this revolution. Western circles did not hide their involvement, as most Western and Arab ambassadors involved in nurturing this revolution openly appeared among the protesters in their sit-in at the gates of the Sudanese Armed Forces General Command.
This intervention extended to consultations with these Western circles on forming the civilian government, which consisted of ministers with dual citizenship and a Prime Minister whose salary and allowances were paid by the European Union. In such a situation, it was natural for these Western circles to pressure the Sudanese transitional period's Prime Minister to request a political mission from the United Nations under "Chapter VI." This further complicated the Sudanese political scene and placed the government under a quasi-UN trusteeship, albeit with the agendas of specific countries.
The Framework Agreement Was the Most Significant Display of Foreign Interventions After Western Circles Convinced the RSF Leader to Accept It
This UN mission, led by its head Volker Perthes, prepared the framework agreement for governing Sudan, in which it stipulated that the integration of the RSF into the Sudanese Armed Forces should occur over 20 years, while the armed forces believed it should happen within two years.
This particular point was crucial as the mission and the civilian component sought to make the RSF a substitute for the Sudanese army, as part of an American-Israeli plan to dismantle the Sudanese army, which is a backbone of the Sudanese state, to facilitate the division of Sudan and the distribution of influence in it.
The framework agreement was the most significant display of foreign interventions in Sudanese affairs, especially after Western circles convinced the RSF leader to fully align with the civilian faction, arguing that Sudan's political solution lay in signing the framework agreement.
An illustrative example of this was a question posed by a journalist to the RSF leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, at a press conference he held after returning from Darfur following a notable meeting with the head of the UN mission in Sudan, Perthes. During this conference, the RSF leader announced his adoption of the framework agreement. The journalist asked him if he had read the framework agreement, to which the RSF leader responded, "No."
The First Intervention Was the Unlimited Support from a Regional State to the RSF with American and Israeli Approval
From here, the real conflict began between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF, which is part of the armed forces according to the law that established these forces. The disputes escalated to the point of armed confrontation, highlighting the external intersections in the Sudanese war, as these interventions became evident through various actions and indications.
Regional and International Support
The first of these interventions emerged through the unlimited support provided by a well-known regional state to the RSF in all forms and types of military support. This support was arranged and approved by American, British, and Israeli authorities. This led to the participation of diaspora Arabs in this war from Chad, Niger, Libya, and other countries, under the watchful eyes of these governments, which had received the American green light. Chadian airports became military bases to supply the RSF with weapons, and camps were established in the Libyan desert and in Chad to provide the militia with fighters.
The level of intervention in Sudan reached the point where around 18 countries were involved in the war on Sudan, according to a statement by the Sudanese army chief.
There is no doubt that these foreign interventions in Sudan were driven by the interests and intersections of all these countries in Sudan and Africa. However, bringing Sudan to the brink of war has made the cost of these interests extremely high and significantly impacted international balance.
Ending the War is Not in the Hands of Sudanese, but in the Decision of Foreign Countries with Intersecting Interests in Sudan
This was prominently demonstrated by Sudan's openness to the Russian, Chinese, Turkish, and Iranian alliances after the United States and Britain closed all avenues for supplying Sudan's army with weapons and obstructed any arms deals it attempted to make. This pressure forced the Sudanese government towards the Russian alliance, complicating matters for the American administration, which had no choice but to attempt to appease the Sudanese government. As usual, the United States will likely begin altering the stances of neighboring countries to Sudan and send messages to Sudan through them, possibly working to stop the war by pressuring regional supportive states and neighboring countries participating in the war, in addition to tightening the noose on the RSF.
America understands that any military treaties between Russia and Sudan, especially given the developing Sudanese-Iranian relations, could signal the end of the war in favor of the Sudanese army. This could lead to a new post-war reality, possibly resulting in a new government unwilling to cooperate with the countries directly responsible for igniting the war and possibly opposed to normalizing relations with Israel, undermining all American interests in the African continent.
Will America hasten to stop the war by negotiating, or will Russia succeed in concluding a military agreement that could end the war in Sudan? All indications suggest that ending the war is not in the hands of Sudanese, but in the hands of foreign countries with intersecting interests in Sudan, capable of finding a way out of this conflict.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Read this Article in Arabic
