Hope and Fear in Sudan Two Years After Protests Erupted

Sudanese protesters from the city of Atbara, the cradle of Sudan's revolution, arrive in the capital Khartoum to celebrate the downfall of dictator Omar al-Bashir in April 2019 | AFP
Sudanese protesters from the city of Atbara, the cradle of Sudan's revolution, arrive in the capital Khartoum to celebrate the downfall of dictator Omar al-Bashir in April 2019 | AFP
TT
20

Hope and Fear in Sudan Two Years After Protests Erupted

Sudanese protesters from the city of Atbara, the cradle of Sudan's revolution, arrive in the capital Khartoum to celebrate the downfall of dictator Omar al-Bashir in April 2019 | AFP
Sudanese protesters from the city of Atbara, the cradle of Sudan's revolution, arrive in the capital Khartoum to celebrate the downfall of dictator Omar al-Bashir in April 2019 | AFP

Sudan has experienced a whirlwind of change since its popular revolution kicked off two years ago, bringing an end to the three-decade reign of strongman Omar al-Bashir.

But experts warn the country is now at a critical juncture as tensions have flared between the military and civilian leaders who share power in a fragile transitional government.

"A rupture between civilians and the military is a constant risk," said Rebecca Hamilton, associate professor at American University's Washington College of Law, urging a "surge" of international support for the civilian side.

Former protest activists like 28-year-old Randa Ahmad are watching events with fear, but refuse to give up hope.

"Two years after the start of the revolution we are of course disappointed," she told AFP.

"We took to the streets because we wanted reform of an economy that was strangling us, and for the regime's criminals to face justice. This is still not the case and I'm suffering as a result."

But the pace of change has, in some respects, been dizzying since the youth-led movement started protesting on December 19, 2018 for greater freedoms and an end to Sudan's international isolation.

Bashir was ousted by the army in April 2019, and the new authorities have since put him on trial over the Islamist-backed coup that first brought him to power.

They have cooperated with the International Criminal Court, which wants to try him on charges of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity over the conflict in the western region of Darfur.

The transitional government -- established in August 2019, four months after Bashir was deposed -- has struck peace deals with rebel groups.

It has also, under US pressure, agreed in principle to diplomatically recognize long-time enemy Israel.

And the US on Monday removed Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, a designation dating from the times when Bashir hosted Osama Bin Laden and other militants.

- 'Lack of trust' -

The delisting should help bring badly-needed foreign aid, debt relief, and investment to one of the world's poorest countries.

But at the same time, an economic crisis with skyrocketing inflation, exacerbated by the global coronavirus pandemic, is bringing yet more pain to the country of over 40 million.

The protests that began two years ago, sparked by high bread prices, were initially centered in the city of Atbara, around 300 kilometers (190 miles) northeast of Khartoum.

Long a hotbed of labor activism, Atbara is where previous revolts started in 1964 and 1985, respectively bringing down dictators Ibrahim Abboud and Jaafar Nimeiri.

Ahmad Khadra, one of the leaders of the Forces for Freedom and Change, the driving force behind the revolution, bemoaned the shortcomings since 2018.

But he is not giving up hope.

"It's true the government structure is not complete ... and the establishment of peace with the guerrilla movements in Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile is slow," he said.

"But it is moving forward anyway and the economy will improve with the end of the ban" by Washington.

Khadra said his greatest concern was discord between the cabinet led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and the military, headed by army chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.

"There is a lack of real trust which hinders the implementation of the agreement between them," he said.

- 'We will overcome' -

Hamdok this week criticised the security sector's "unacceptable" control over a vast array of companies in gold, rubber, flour, and other key sectors.

Burhan, who also chairs the Sovereign Council, Sudan's highest executive body, earlier accused the transitional institutions of deepening the people's "suffering".

"A year after its creation, I say that the transitional council has failed to respond to the aspirations of the people and of the revolution," the general charged.

The military, he pledged, would "remain the first force in defending the people, protect their achievements and work to protect the glorious revolution".

"Sudan is at a critical juncture," Rosemary DiCarlo, under-secretary-general for political and peace-building affairs, told a recent UN Security Council briefing, urging stepped-up support for the country.

"It can move forward decisively in its transition. But that process can still be derailed by the many challenges it faces."

Eric Reeves, a researcher at the Rift Valley Institute, fears a government rupture or even a coup is "an increasingly likely outcome".

The risk would increase early next year, he said, "as we approach the date on which the civilians on the Sovereign Council take over the chairmanship.

"For the interim, the military will continue to exert or claim more and more executive power."

Randa Ahmad, the activist, said she held on to the hope that change for the better is irreversible.

"Despite everything, I believe in the success of our revolution," she said. "We will overcome all the difficulties and we will have a democratically elected civilian government."



Trump Carves Up World and International Order with It

Analysts say talks to end the war in Ukraine 'could resemble a new Yalta'. TASS/AFP
Analysts say talks to end the war in Ukraine 'could resemble a new Yalta'. TASS/AFP
TT
20

Trump Carves Up World and International Order with It

Analysts say talks to end the war in Ukraine 'could resemble a new Yalta'. TASS/AFP
Analysts say talks to end the war in Ukraine 'could resemble a new Yalta'. TASS/AFP

By casting doubt on the world order, Donald Trump risks dragging the globe back into an era where great powers impose their imperial will on the weak, analysts warn.
Russia wants Ukraine, China demands Taiwan and now the US president seems to be following suit, whether by coveting Canada as the "51st US state", insisting "we've got to have" Greenland or kicking Chinese interests out of the Panama Canal.
Where the United States once defended state sovereignty and international law, Trump's disregard for his neighbors' borders and expansionist ambitions mark a return to the days when the world was carved up into spheres of influence.
As recently as Wednesday, US defense secretary Pete Hegseth floated the idea of an American military base to secure the Panama Canal, a strategic waterway controlled by the United States until 1999 which Trump's administration has vowed to "take back".
Hegseth's comments came nearly 35 years after the United States invaded to topple Panama's dictator Manuel Noriega, harking back to when successive US administrations viewed Latin America as "America's backyard".
"The Trump 2.0 administration is largely accepting the familiar great power claim to 'spheres of influence'," Professor Gregory O. Hall, of the University of Kentucky, told AFP.
Indian diplomat Jawed Ashraf warned that by "speaking openly about Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal", "the new administration may have accelerated the slide" towards a return to great power domination.
The empire strikes back
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has posed as the custodian of an international order "based on the ideas of countries' equal sovereignty and territorial integrity", said American researcher Jeffrey Mankoff, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
But those principles run counter to how Russia and China see their own interests, according to the author of "Empires of Eurasia: how imperial legacies shape international security".
Both countries are "themselves products of empires and continue to function in many ways like empires", seeking to throw their weight around for reasons of prestige, power or protection, Mankoff said.
That is not to say that spheres of influence disappeared with the fall of the Soviet Union.
"Even then, the US and Western allies sought to expand their sphere of influence eastward into what was the erstwhile Soviet and then the Russian sphere of influence," Ashraf, a former adviser to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, pointed out.
But until the return of Trump, the United States exploited its position as the "policeman of the world" to ward off imperial ambitions while pushing its own interests.
Now that Trump appears to view the cost of upholding a rules-based order challenged by its rivals and increasingly criticized in the rest of the world as too expensive, the United States is contributing to the cracks in the facade with Russia and China's help.
And as the international order weakens, the great powers "see opportunities to once again behave in an imperial way", said Mankoff.
Yalta yet again
As at Yalta in 1945, when the United States and the Soviet Union divided the post-World War II world between their respective zones of influence, Washington, Beijing and Moscow could again agree to carve up the globe anew.
"Improved ties between the United States and its great-power rivals, Russia and China, appear to be imminent," Derek Grossman, of the United States' RAND Corporation think tank, said in March.
But the haggling over who gets dominance over what and where would likely come at the expense of other countries.
"Today's major powers are seeking to negotiate a new global order primarily with each other," Monica Toft, professor of international relations at Tufts University in Massachusets wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs.
"In a scenario in which the United States, China, and Russia all agree that they have a vital interest in avoiding a nuclear war, acknowledging each other's spheres of influence can serve as a mechanism to deter escalation," Toft said.
If that were the case, "negotiations to end the war in Ukraine could resemble a new Yalta", she added.
Yet the thought of a Ukraine deemed by Trump to be in Russia's sphere is likely to send shivers down the spines of many in Europe -- not least in Ukraine itself.
"The success or failure of Ukraine to defend its sovereignty is going to have a lot of impact in terms of what the global system ends up looking like a generation from now," Mankoff said.
"So it's important for countries that have the ability and want to uphold an anti-imperial version of international order to assist Ukraine," he added -- pointing the finger at Europe.
"In Trump's world, Europeans need their own sphere of influence," said Rym Momtaz, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.
"For former imperial powers, Europeans seem strangely on the backfoot as nineteenth century spheres of influence come back as the organising principle of global affairs."