Sudanese Civilian Parties Sign Framework Deal for New Political Transition

Sudanese protesters deploy a giant national flag, as they march outside the UN headquarters in the Manshiya district of the capital Khartoum, on December 3, 2022. (AFP)
Sudanese protesters deploy a giant national flag, as they march outside the UN headquarters in the Manshiya district of the capital Khartoum, on December 3, 2022. (AFP)
TT
20

Sudanese Civilian Parties Sign Framework Deal for New Political Transition

Sudanese protesters deploy a giant national flag, as they march outside the UN headquarters in the Manshiya district of the capital Khartoum, on December 3, 2022. (AFP)
Sudanese protesters deploy a giant national flag, as they march outside the UN headquarters in the Manshiya district of the capital Khartoum, on December 3, 2022. (AFP)

Sudan’s ruling generals and the main pro-democracy group on Monday signed a framework deal until elections.

The deal pledges to establish a new, civilian-led transitional government to guide the country to elections and offers a path forward in the wake of Sudan's stalled transition to democracy following the October 2021 coup.

The deal — the first of at least two planned accords — was signed by Sudan’s two ruling generals, Abdel-Fattah Burhan and Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, and the leaders from the country's largest pro-democracy group, Forces for the Declaration of Freedom and Change, at the Khartoum Republican Palace.

However, several of Sudan’s key dissenting political forces have boycotted the deal, including Sudan’s grassroots pro-democracy network, known as the Resistance Committee, which has continually refused to negotiate with the ruling generals.

According to the draft, the deal envisions Sudan’s military step back from politics. The agreement also stipulates that the “revolutionary forces” that signed the deal will decide upon a new prime minister to oversee a two-year transition, a 24-month period that begins after a premier is appointed.

In response to the signing, the pro-democracy Resistance Committee leaders called for demonstrations against the agreement.

The deal is roughly based on a draft transitional constitution proposed Sudan’s Bar Association in September. It does not address details concerning thornier political issues, such as a transitional judiciary system and the implementation of military reforms, which have been left for a follow-up accord.

It also stipulates that the military will form part of a new “security and defense council” under the appointed prime minister. The agreement also vows to unify Sudan’s armed forces and subject controls on military-owned companies.

Sudan has been plugged into turmoil since its leading military figure, Burhan, mounted the October 2021 coup that upended the country’s former democratic transition after three decades of rule by Omar al-Bashir. The former leader was toppled in April 2019 following a popular uprising.

The UN special envoy to Sudan, Volker Perthes, attended Monday's signing and later, at a speech at the palace, described the deal as “Sudanese-owned and Sudanese-led.”

The United States and its partners welcomed the agreement and urged all parties to make a concerted effort to finalize negotiations on a new civilian-led government.

"This is the key to unlocking the resumption of international development assistance and deeper cooperation between the government of Sudan and international partners," the countries said in a joint statement.

"We are working with partners to coordinate significant economic support to a civilian-led transitional government to help address the challenges facing the people of Sudan."

Participating countries include Norway, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Britain and the US.

Monday's development came after months of negotiations between the military and the Forces for the Declaration of Freedom and Change, facilitated by a four-part mediating team, including the US, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Britain.

The deal will hope to drawn in new international aid, after donor funds dried up in response to the coup. In recent months, bread and fuel shortages, caused in part by the war in Ukraine, have become routine in Sudan.



How Did Iraq Survive ‘Existential Threat More Dangerous than ISIS’?

Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
TT
20

How Did Iraq Survive ‘Existential Threat More Dangerous than ISIS’?

Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 

Diplomatic sources in Baghdad revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that Iraqi authorities were deeply concerned about sliding into the Israeli-Iranian war, which they considered “an existential threat to Iraq even more dangerous than that posed by ISIS when it overran a third of the country’s territory.”

The sources explained that “ISIS was a foreign body that inevitably had to be expelled by the Iraqi entity, especially given the international and regional support Baghdad enjoyed in confronting it... but the war (with Israel) threatened Iraq’s unity.”

They described this “existential threat” as follows:

-When the war broke out, Baghdad received messages from Israel, conveyed via Azerbaijan and other channels, stating that Israel would carry out “harsh and painful” strikes in response to any attacks launched against it from Iraqi territory. The messages held the Iraqi authorities responsible for any such attacks originating from their soil.

-Washington shifted from the language of prior advice to direct warnings, highlighting the grave consequences that could result from any attacks carried out by Iran-aligned factions.

-Iraqi authorities feared what they described as a “disaster scenario”: that Iraqi factions would launch attacks on Israel, prompting Israel to retaliate with a wave of assassinations similar to those it conducted against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon or Iranian generals and scientists at the start of the war.

-The sources noted that delivering painful blows to these factions would inevitably inflame the Shiite street, potentially pushing the religious authority to take a strong stance. At that point, the crisis could take on the character of a Shiite confrontation with Israel.

-This scenario raised fears that other Iraqi components would then blame the Shiite component for dragging Iraq into a war that could have been avoided. In such circumstances, the divergence in choices between the Shiite and Sunni communities could resurface, reviving the threat to Iraq’s unity.

-Another risk was the possibility that the Kurds would declare that the Iraqi government was acting as if it only represented one component, and that the country was exhausted by wars, prompting the Kurdish region to prefer distancing itself from Baghdad to avoid being drawn into unwanted conflicts.

-Mohammed Shia Al Sudani’s government acted with a mix of firmness and prudence. It informed the factions it would not tolerate any attempt to drag the country into a conflict threatening its unity, while on the other hand keeping its channels open with regional and international powers, especially the US.

-Iraqi authorities also benefited from the position of Iranian authorities, who did not encourage the factions to engage in the war but instead urged them to remain calm. Some observers believed that Iran did not want to risk its relations with Iraq after losing Syria.

-Another significant factor was the factions’ realization that the war exceeded their capabilities, especially in light of what Hezbollah faced in Lebanon and the Israeli penetrations inside Iran itself, which demonstrated that Israel possessed precise intelligence on hostile organizations and was able to reach its targets thanks to its technological superiority and these infiltrations.

-The sources indicated that despite all the pressure and efforts, “rogue groups” tried to prepare three attacks, but the authorities succeeded in thwarting them before they were carried out.

The sources estimated that Iran suffered a deep wound because Israel moved the battle onto Iranian soil and encouraged the US to target its nuclear facilities. They did not rule out another round of fighting “if Iran does not make the necessary concessions on the nuclear issue.”