Three Big Reasons The U.S. Should Care About The War In Sudan: Russia, Iran And China

-Analysis-

CAIRO — Less than two weeks ahead of the U.S. election, American foreign policy’s role in Sudan’s forgotten war should not be overlooked. Washington has tried to balance between avoiding direct involvement in the war, and refusing complete withdrawal from the scene.

For the administration of President Joe Biden, it was a kind of stick-and-carrot policy directed at both parties — the Sudanese military and the notorious paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) — to try to force negotiations for a political solution to the conflict, while threatening the deployment of an international force to protect civilians — under the UN’s Chapter VII.

Washington also resorted to the weapon of sanctions against “war criminals.” Most recently, it slapped sanctions on Al-Qoni Hamdan Dagalo Musa, the younger brother of the RSF commander. The administration accuses him of involvement in efforts to purchase weapons and military equipment and helping the RSF in besieging the Darfur city of Al-Fasher as part of the ongoing war.

War between the Sudanese military and the RSF broke out in April 2023 in the capital, Khartoum, and has spread across the country. Darfur has seen particularly intense fighting. The war has killed at least 20,000 people and left tens of thousands wounded, according to the United Nations. However, rights groups and activists say the real toll is much higher.

The war has also forced about 14 million people to flee their homes in Sudan including more than three million who fled to neighboring counties, according to the International Organization for Migration.

But the conflict is also terrain for potential proxy wars between the world’s strongest nations. A Russian cargo plane shot down this week offers a glimpse into the power struggle, even as the U.S. has its focus elsewhere.

Expanding embargo

The Biden administration’s failure to adopt a decisive policy has been evident in statements by its officials. U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Tom Perriello said earlier this year in a meeting with a group of journalists in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, that Washington was consulting with the African Union on the possibility of deploying African peacekeeping forces to Sudan to protect civilians.

Although Perriello denied the comment and said that it was taken out of context, it affirms the administration’s continued state of hesitation.

He said that there were open channels of communication with the African Union regarding the mechanism for monitoring current and future agreements between Sudan’s warring parties.

“The United States is adopting a balanced approach that combines the use of diplomatic and punitive tools to ensure pressure on the warring parties to achieve tangible results on the ground,” U.S. State Department regional spokesman Samuel Werberg said.

Africa is in the background of other raging crises.

Hamid Al-Tijani, Dean of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Public Policy at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, ruled out a direct U.S. intervention in Sudan. However, the administration, he said, will continue pressuring the two parties through sanctions and threats to expand the scope of the arms embargo to all Sudanese territories, which is currently limited to Darfur.

He said the administration views that negotiations is the best way to resolve the Sudanese crisis, but that imposing sanctions is necessary “to deter any new acts of violence and hold accountable those responsible for human rights violations.”

Werberg said that the U.S. is committed to a diplomatic solution, but one that is led by the Sudanese themselves.

Russia, China and Iran

Al-Tijani said that the U.S. is no longer interested in getting directly involved in Africa’s conflicts given that its greater priorities are its strategic competition with China, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the risk of widening conflict between Israel and Iran.

He said that the U.S. administration views the conflicts in Africa as “in the background of other crises.” But it refuses to fully abandon Sudan’s conflict as reflected in its push to hold Geneva negotiations in September after it found growing coordination between the Sudanese army, Russia, and Iran. The talks failed to achieve progress towards a cease-fire, but both sides pledged to allow the delivery of aid to the country’s population, especially in Darfur.

Talk of the possibility of U.S. intervention or U.S. support for an international intervention was raised when the fact-finding committee formed by the UN Human Rights Council called for the deployment of an “independent and neutral” force in Sudan to protect civilians.

Political transition

In its report, which was released in September, the council said both parties had committed horrific crimes and human rights violations, which could amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Werberg, the State Department spokesman, said the U.S. administration was working with its partners to ensure that the warring parties adhere to previous agreements, such as the Jeddah Declaration, “as a step towards achieving stability and security in Sudan.”

“The ultimate goal is to reach a comprehensive ceasefire and start a political transition process led by civilians that preserves the rights of all Sudanese,” he said.

Red Sea proximity

Imam Al-Hilu, head of the Policy Committee at Sudan’s largest National Umma Party, said there were challenges to reach a consensus on international intervention including differences among members of the UN Security Council.

He also cited the possibility of a regional war in the Middle East which requires the United States to mobilize its assets to protect Israel. “As long as there is no party capable of resolving the conflict in its favor in Sudan, the United States does not see the need for full engagement.”

The Sudanese military rulers have sought deeper ties with Russia and China.

Nasr al-Din Youssef, member of the Darfur Bar Association, said the U.S. is interested in Sudan’s conflict because of the country’s geopolitical location on the Red Sea in light of the ambitions of Russia, Iran, and recently China in the region.

Sudanese and Russian military officials have exchanged visits recently to revive and activate an agreement to establish a Russian naval base on Sudan’s Red Sea coast.

The Sudanese military rulers have also sought deeper ties with Russia and China. Military Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan visited China in September and signed an agreement with Beijing for strategic cooperation in the defense field.

However, Tijani, the political scientist, still believes the U.S. is the only player with the power to force the parties to negotiate a lasting peace. Only the U.S. can simultaneously pressure both the warring parties, as well as convince other countries in the region to halt arms supplies to each side.