Where a crisis always means good business

If any quiz master asks you what all this conflict in Sudan is about, your answer would be simple: It is a fight between two generals as to when the civilian rule should be in place in the country. Done?

Anyone following the developments over there would think it is a conflict between the vested interests of two individuals – army chief and military ruler Gen Abdel Fattah Al Burhan and commander of the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. The warring factions in Sudan now do not want the power to get back into the hands of the people. For the simple reason that they would not benefit from it. But before getting into it, let us not forget the nature of the Sudanese rulers all along.

Osamana Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network parked itself here for a long time to damage the entire region. Sudan witnessed various uprisings in the past, more so, between 1989 until 2019. During the period mentioned here, Sudan was under the control of the Salvation regime of the Islamist forces called 'Al-Ingaz.' This highly controversial military-Islamist rule not only sought to control Sudan but also was intent upon destabilising the neighbouring countries. In 2009, its president Omar Al-Bashir had been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Darfur region. He faced five counts of crimes against humanity. An estimate says that at least 5 lakh people perished in the time.

The conflicts raged under Bashir between the government forces during 2003-08 between the Government of Sudan and several organised armed groups, in particular the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). Soon after the April 2003 attack on the El Fasher airport, Omar Al Bashir and other high-ranking Sudanese political and military leaders of the GoS agreed upon a common plan to carry out a counter-insurgency campaign against the SLM/A, the JEM and other armed groups opposing the Government of Sudan in Darfur. A core component of that campaign was the unlawful attack on part of the civilian population of Darfur – belonging largely to the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups – who were perceived to be close to the organised armed groups opposing the Government of Sudan in Darfur.

The campaign was conducted through GoS forces, including the Sudanese Armed Forces and their allied Janjaweed militia, the Sudanese Police Forces, the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) and the Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC). It lasted at least until the date of the filing of the Prosecution Application on 14 July 2008. During the campaign, GoS forces allegedly committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of genocide, and in particular: a. carried out numerous unlawful attacks, followed by systematic acts of pillage, on towns and villages, mainly inhabited by civilians belonging to the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups. The nature of the clash was such that even drinking water sources and food were contaminated by the government.

Bashir while practising all these crimes attempted to protect his authority by financially, politically and militarily empowering other security services, especially the RSF, a paramilitary outfit recruited largely from tribal militias from Western Sudan. This was one of the biggest blunders that the Bashir regime conducted which led to simmering differences over several destabilising plans in the neighbourhood – Libya (facing a civil war), tensions in Egypt and over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile. Bashir might have thought that the Sudanese Armed Forces had become ineffective and, hence, started giving an irrational ground to the supremacy of the Rapid Support Forces over the traditional Armed forces. When Bashir's rule was sought to be overthrown by ordinary Sudanese who revolted against the heinous regime, both the chiefs of the army and special forces (RSF) joined hands with the people. A point to be noted here is that the differences between the two forces remained intact. All that the two sought was halting the transition of Sudan into a democratic government. To project the clash between the forces as a reason for the current crisis should be interpolated with the traditional rivalry between the two and their ultimate goals.

Sudan had risen steadily as an economic power among the African nations topping them as an oil producer pumping about 5,00,000 barrels per day in 2008. When the civil war was at its peak, the then military-Islamist (a more respectable term for the terrorist force in power in Sudan) rule had in fact announced that "it would make Sudan an economic power in Africa after ethnically cleansing the areas" where oil would be drilled out.

The two rival factions that are warring over the transition to civil rule in Sudan are in fact controlled by the business interests of the West – the USA and Britain.

The picture of Sudan is more complex than what it really is. It is not just these Western forces that are interested in Sudan's energy reserves, but also the neighbouring countries. The 2011 secession of South Sudan dealt a crippling blow to the regime that was seeking full control over the natural resources.

This created a new race between the two groups at each other's throat now for control over the political economy. The SAF and the RSF took control over key commercial activities from meat processing, information and communication technology and gold smuggling to a range of import-export rackets. Post 2019, Sudan came under much international pressure for de-Islamisation and heavy reforms. However, as divisions in Sudan's political establishment persisted over the management of economy, the civilian ministers who were part of the coalition in place faced the burden of absorbing the cost of lifting subsidies while the huge Western relief of billions of dollars was held hostage to the political concerns as no one was sure whether the military bosses would compensate the victims of terrorism. No one was even sure whether the country would join the Abraham Accords with Israel.

Take a pause here and ask who was fighting for what in Sudan. The SAF as well as the RSF were fighting for economic control alongside political control without answerability. The institutional competition between the two was the cause and consequence of the crisis which the West should have realised long ago and acted upon. But it does not happen that way. Isn't it so? A crisis always leads to good business.

Now, there is not much to share for both. Hence, the conflict for the leftovers in Sudan. There is no foreseeable future where peace would prevail in Sudan, a real estate piece of land much in demand for what little economy it generates. It is an ethnic, regional and international conflict wherein the orphaned Sudanese people are staring at a dark future. Major African and Middle East countries have now joined hands with the US and Britain to take the steering into their hands.

When civilian rule campaigners forced the two warring factions to share power alongside just a couple of years ago, it looked all hunky dory. But, there are just too many cooks to spoil the broth.