What’s worse than being ruled by one of history’s greatest monsters? The unfortunate people of Sudan are at risk of finding out.
Omar al-Bashir - who made the International Criminal Court’s most-wanted list for overseeing a genocidal campaign in Sudan’s Darfur region; who drove his economy to such ruin that the ATMs last year ran out of bills; who watched as a quarter of his people seceded to form a new country; and who once created a cozy haven for Osama bin Laden - was finally deposed as president in April after nearly 30 years.
The celebration didn’t last long. This month, more than 100 of the protesters whose actions had led to Bashir’s downfall were killed on the banks of the Nile by forces under the command of the military council that replaced him. Is there any hope for democracy?
For answers to these questions, there are few better to turn to than Judd Devermont. Now director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Here is an edited transcript of a discussion we had last week.
Tobin Harshaw: The world celebrated the overthrow of Omar al-Bashir. Was that a case of “be careful what you wish for”?
Judd Devermont: In the early days after Bashir was overthrown, there was cause for optimism. It was the product of four months of protests by a broad array of people, including a large role for women and the Sudanese Professionals Association. The resiliency and solidarity of that movement, and the terms which they were negotiating for, I think were really promising at first. But since June 3, we're at a juncture.
TH: The military junta says that it wants to hold elections within nine months, and the democracy protesters are against that. Can you explain why?
JD: Initially there was a conversation about having a transition over three years or four years, but later, the military threw all of that out the window and started talking about nine months. The opposition has a long view, that there'd have to be a number of structural reforms in Sudan to actually have a democratic process.
TH: What would some of these structural changes be?
JD: The Sudanese opposition is talking about the constitution, as well as greater political inclusion. It's really a soup-to-nuts revision of the democratic project in Sudan.
TH: Why is Egypt involved, and what does it want?
JD: I think it's more nuanced. Egypt would like to see stability on its southern border … They are concerned about where the next government will stand on the Nile River, which is the lifeblood of Egypt. For a couple of years now, Ethiopia has been building what's called the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Sudan has largely sided with Ethiopia on the creation of the dam, which Egypt feels would cut off some of their supply of the Nile. And so they're very clear that they want to have a partner in Sudan who is going to align with them over the Nile.
TH: The Ethiopians have been trying to mediate in Sudan. Why are they in this position?
JD: Ethiopia was deployed because Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is an energetic leader who has credibility with the protesters because of the reforms he’s instituted in Ethiopia. But he's also from the Ethiopian military, and so the view is he may appreciate the Sudanese military’s perspective.
The downside in sending Abiy is that he has a full plate in Ethiopia right now. What he’s undertaking is fully remaking that state, and he's having a tough go of it, and he really doesn't have the capacity to do the shuttle diplomacy and really work with the parties in Sudan to get to a deal.
TH: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are funneling in a reported $3 billion in assistance. What is their goal?
JD: Sudan is essentially the “near abroad” for the Gulf states ... It’s also a playing field for Iran, which is no longer active in Sudan, but has been. So it matters a great deal what happens in Sudan for the UAE and Saudi Arabia. And that's in addition to the longstanding commercial, political and religious ties.
TH: What's going to happen with Bashir? He's wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
JD: The Transitional Military Council probably will let him stay in Sudan. They may do some sort of trials and confiscate his money … The protesters are more of a mixed bag. They may also not want to send him over to the ICC, for sovereignty reasons, but they would probably do some sort of trial, given his 30 years of rule and all the harm and destruction that was done.
TH: Finally, other than the obvious humanitarian and moral concerns, what is Americans’ national interest there?
JD: Sudan is at the crossroads of Africa and the Middle East. It is an exporter of insecurity, or at least has been for most of its history, in the rest of the region. And if we're looking for a peaceful sub-Saharan Africa, if we are looking for a government that is going to be productive in the Greater Middle East ... I think Sudan is really important.
Bloomberg View
