What Burhan Must Strongly Beware Of

Author: الصادق الرزيقي

SadaNews - Regardless of the various interpretations that people have gone into regarding the brief visit last week of Sudan's Sovereignty Council President Abdel Fattah Burhan to Zurich, Switzerland, where he met with his advisor Mas'ad Boulos and a delegation from former U.S. President Donald Trump, the opinions converge on the significance of this step. It is seen as a crucial turning point for events in Sudan, presuming that what preceded the meeting was one thing, and what follows entails new positions and assessments that will impact the course of the war as it surpasses its third year.

Beyond the motivations that led Burhan to agree to the meeting and his unannounced travel, questions arise about the background of this event, which was not isolated. Were there prior communications and preparations that led to a shift in the cautious American stance regarding direct and decisive intervention in the Sudanese file…?

It is noteworthy that after the Trump administration took office, the Sudan file was not on the table at the White House. The current administration inherited a non-productive situation regarding this file, which remained managed by a small circle in the U.S. State Department, controlling Washington's engagement with the Sudanese issue and determining its trajectories and resolutions.

The current administration did not pay much attention in recent periods to what was happening in Sudan, except for a few attempts made by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio under the influence of the relevant departments in his ministry, alongside limited statements and activities by some congressional members and lobby groups, none of which achieved the goals of these parties, including the quadripartite committee meeting that was scheduled and then canceled at the end of last month.

Thus, the Sudan file remained for many years confined to the U.S. State Department, which did not care strategically about the geopolitical and political importance of Sudan. It did not engage in dialogue with Sudan to establish a basis for understandings that would lead to a stable relationship and an environment conducive to sustainable peace in Sudan and the region, especially since Washington has continuously been a core party complicating the problems of this afflicted country.

Despite Washington imposing sanctions on Sudan's Sovereignty Council President, Army Chief General Abdel Fattah Burhan, on January 16, ahead of the Democrats leaving power, based on allegations of the Sudanese army using chemical weapons in the ongoing war against the Rapid Support Forces rebellion in Khartoum, the current Republican administration has moved beyond this issue and the matter of sanctions, preferring direct engagement with Burhan. They believe that direct communication with him is commensurate with the immense significance they assign to Sudan in its current condition and its future relationship with Washington, as well as the impact of developments there on the region.

In this context, influential U.S. institutions such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Pentagon found an opportunity to act, being critical tools in policy-making and implementation in the United States. They moved through various fronts, gathered numerous opinions, and collected abundant information regarding what is happening in Sudan and its ramifications.

A CIA delegation was sent weeks ago to Port Sudan, where they met with Director of General Intelligence, General Ahmed Ibrahim Mufdel, to discuss the main issues and files that represent Washington's concerns in Sudan, including the state of war and its regional implications, ways to resume Sudan's cooperation on counter-terrorism efforts, the regional security system in East, Central, and West Africa, and Red Sea security. Constructive opinions were raised during the meeting following candid dialogue between both sides.

Simultaneously, elements sent from American research centers affiliated with these two institutions - the CIA and the Pentagon - roamed the region and engaged with several Sudanese in Cairo, Doha, Nairobi, Dubai, Turkey, Uganda, and South Sudan.

These elements listened to diverse perspectives representing all political and social spectrums in Sudan regarding the ongoing war, how to address it, and the anticipated U.S. role. The U.S. administration and its envoys drew on opinions from Arab countries in the region: Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, as well as African nations, alongside Turkey and some Western parties.

What concerns President Trump's administration is what the American president seeks concerning easing tensions and conflicts around the world, attempting to appear as a messenger of peace, serving the true interests of the United States, and building new strategies that consider these interests.

Regarding Sudan, Trump and his administration relied on reports from relevant agencies: Intelligence, and the Department of Defense; to assess the situation in Sudan, leading to the identification of White House concerns, which include:

Joint cooperation with Sudan in a direct bilateral relationship.

Maintaining the regional security framework in the Horn of Africa and Sudan's neighborhood.

Resolving Sudan's disputes and preventing their extension.

Resuming and continuing previous cooperation in counter-terrorism, as Sudan has played a significant role that no other country has contributed to in the same capacity as the Sudanese intelligence has with the Americans previously.

Enhancing presence in this country and benefiting from its resources, particularly in mining, energy, and rare minerals.

In light of these data, the American side possessed facts and information that prompted them to seize the opportune moment. It is not hidden that Sudanese diplomatic reports and others from friendly countries have long spoken of discussions within American decision-making institutions, suggesting that Sudan is an important country and that Washington must emerge from its neutrality to decisively shape its views regarding the ongoing war and read it according to interests that serve American policy goals. Engaging with the military leadership and the state presidency is the best way to reach an understanding and to end the state of war.

Regardless of what happened in the Zurich meeting, the little that has leaked indicates American interest in the future of governance and the organization of political life in Sudan, including overcoming certain obstacles and not sticking to supporting a small party that speaks on behalf of civil forces.

The American side views that the political future of Sudan does not diverge from the existing models in the region and its neighborhood, where the army will remain a crucial side in the political equation for the foreseeable future.

However, the American position that Burhan must be clear and firm on is the Americans' attempt to stir fears about Islamists. Burhan is aware that Islamists are the most prominent presence in the political scene, rooted in society and its institutions, fully engaged in the battle against rebellion, with extensions in the region and extensive relationships in the world that have been mobilized for this fight.

This current cannot be compared to other political forces. All alliances, mobilization campaigns, and grassroots resistance efforts backed by public opinion supporting the armed forces involved Islamists significantly, making them the most important national current working alongside others to uphold the unity, safety, and sovereignty of the country.

Historical evidence indicates that Americans have not been sincere with all their allies; it is a mistake to believe that the cards are in the hands of the Americans, thus caution is required when dealing with Washington to avoid being deceived and let down as they did with Numeri, Hosni Mubarak, the Shah of Iran, and other allies they abandoned, leading to their downfall like fallen leaves. For the U.S. has no true friends.

Relying only on Washington will not allow Sudan to heal its wounds and move forward. If the Americans desire equitable relations that consider the security and stability of Sudan and the integrity of its territory, then the current understandings may lead to the correct starting point.

At the same time, Burhan can spare the country the pitfalls of keen American positions if he succeeds in his dialogue with the American side, being clear and adhering to national constants while rejecting their blatant interference in internal affairs.

Additionally, understanding them regarding shared benefits and bilateral cooperation that serves the interests of both countries, alongside coordination in regional files and maintaining security and peace in the African and Arab spaces, offers him significant opportunities to achieve that.

While the American administration determines its approach towards the war in Sudan, whether it will propose a vision for resolution or work with the current legitimate authority to end the rebellion as Burhan requested, it is imperative for the Sovereignty Council President not to tip the balance towards external forces over internal forces, which are the most crucial factor in the equation and play the most prominent role in preserving the country and its cohesion.

External forces, no matter how powerful, will observe the internal interactions and cannot impose anything on Sudan if its internal forces are awake, alive, cohesive, and strong.