Israel’s man in Sudan maneuvers deftly among the powers seeking sway

Read More

Sudanese strongman Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan is the man most in demand in the Middle East. His visitors have included Israeli Mossad officers, Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel, the U.S. special envoy for the Horn of Africa, Jeffrey Feltman, and senior envoys from the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Russia and the United Nations. Suddenly one of the poorest countries on earth, scarcely noticed on the international stage, has become a concern rattling the global order.

The military coup led by Burhan on October 25 is seen as an earthquake, like the Iranian regime going under or the Saudi royal family renouncing its rule. Indeed, the joint statement Wednesday by the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia and the UAE urging the restoration of the civilian government gave the impression that this rare democracy in the Middle East was falling apart.

LISTEN: Racist Jew vies for French presidency, shocking and splitting Jewish voters

The four countries affirmed their “stance with the people of Sudan and emphasize the importance of supporting their aspirations for a democratic and peaceful nation.”

The statement added: “We endorse the international community’s serious concern with the situation in Sudan. We call for the full and immediate restoration of its civilian-led transitional government and institutions. We call upon all parties to strive for cooperation and unity in reaching this critical objective.

“In that vein we encourage the release of all those detained in connection with recent events and the lifting of the state of emergency. Violence has no place in the new Sudan, on this point we encourage an effective dialogue between all parties, and we urge all to ensure that the peace and security for the people of Sudan is a top priority.”

The same international community didn’t exactly stand with the Sudanese people when they were ruled by dictator Omar al-Bashir from 1993 to 2019. It didn’t intervene when his forces slaughtered millions of people in Darfur, and its views differed on the transitional government and the civilian-military Sovereignty Council that was tasked with ensuring a democratic government.

And let’s not let the term “international community” mislead us. Egypt, Israel, Russia, China and Turkey didn’t sign the joint statement. Meanwhile, the glue that allegedly binds the United States, Saudi Arabia and the UAE is pretty thin.

At U.S request, Israel is using its Sudan ties to curb military coup

Israel can only make real peace with a democratic Sudan, not with coup leaders in Khartoum

First Saudi Arabia, now Sudan: Why Israel’s normalization strategy is imploding

The most significant move regarding the coup was made by the United States when it froze $700 million in aid, making the International Monetary Fund halt the $2 billion aid program designed to revive the country’s shattered economy. The aid came about only after Sudan decided to normalize relations with Israel under U.S. President Donald Trump. Sudan was scratched from the list of terror-supporting states and the aid flowed in.

But already in 2019, when the power-sharing agreement was signed by the army and civilian institutions as the basis for forming Abdalla Hamdok’s government, it was clear that the army would dictate policy for the next 21 months. After that stretch the army was to transfer leadership of the Sovereignty Council to a civilian, who would head it for 18 months until an election was held.

Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, who was deposed in the coup.Ashraf Shazly / AFP

The Muslim Brotherhood angle

The coup didn’t break up Sudan’s democracy, it broke up temporary arrangements that didn’t ensure there would be a democratic regime. The need to make the army part of politics – an anti-democratic need – may attest to the fragility of the country’s political structure and future.

Even the United States, which carried the flag against the coup, realizes that without the army there is no hope of a government. Speaking to journalists this week, Feltman said that “during this transition period, one’s not going to be able to sideline the military, that the – that just as the military should not be trying to sideline the civilians, as they are now, that there’s going to have to be a way to work with the military, that the military does have an important role to play in the transition and the military does have an important role to play in Sudan after the transition, after democratic elections.”

It’s hard to settle the contradiction between the joint statement Wednesday, which calls on the army to reinstate the civilian government, and Feltman’s statement, which talks about making the army a political partner.

Another problem is the U.S. request to Israel and Egypt to mediate with the Sudanese army and persuade Burhan to reinstate Hamdok’s government. Both Israel and Egypt have an interest in Burhan staying on to run the state’s affairs.

Since the coup, the protesters in the streets demanding the restoring of “democracy” are voicing the slogan “Either victory or Egypt,” meaning they don’t want a military coup like the one that followed Gen. Abdel-Fattah al-Sissi’s ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013. The Brothers’ regime was democratically elected and seemed democratic but was ruled exclusively by the group.

The anti-Egypt sentiment that Egypt fears is also based on the Brotherhood’s propaganda and operations in Sudan. When the transitional government was formed after Bashir’s ouster, it purged many Muslim Brotherhood managers, army officers, judges and other senior officials.

After the coup the Brothers decided to support Burhan; the group’s media explained why the takeover was a good thing and helped democratize the country. The Brothers believed that an alliance with the military would allow them political freedom before the next election.

Protesters chanting slogans in Khartoum on Thursday, a week and a half after the coup.
Marwan Ali / AP

This assessment may be correct because immediately after the coup many Brotherhood operatives, judges and prosecutors who had been appointed by Hamdok’s transitional government were freed from prison. The fear now is that the army will appoint jurists who served under Bashir, including Muslim Brothers.

Egypt is alarmed by this development, hoping to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood’s return to power. According to Western media reports, Burhan consulted with Sissi and intelligence chief Kamel days before the coup and Sudan interpreted this as Egyptian encouragement for the putsch in exchange for more oppressing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egypt also needs a strong Sudanese ally against Ethiopia, with which Egypt and Sudan are conducting hopeless talks on operating the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which Egypt sees as an existential threat.

The Israel angle

As for Israel, its ties with the Sudanese regime were crafted mainly by Burhan, who met with Benjamin Netanyahu in Uganda without reporting it to Hamdok, Sudan’s prime minister at the time.

The meeting and failure to report it unleashed a political storm in Sudan because Hamdok sought to delay the normalization declaration with Israel so as not to be seen as betraying the Palestinians. But it seems he was persuaded by the economic and political benefits for Sudan. Still, relations with Hamdok remained cool compared to the military ties that tightened with Burhan.

Israel seeks to use Sudan’s strategic location on the Red Sea as it may have done in the tiny country of Djibouti to the southeast, where according to foreign sources Israel set up a large intelligence base. It’s not clear what commitments Israel received from Burhan, but we can draw conclusions about the closeness of this relationship based on the U.S. request that Israel use its ties to help reinstate the Sudanese government.

Israel and Egypt are joined by Russia and Turkey, who aim to exploit the regime change to ensure their sway in Sudan. In 2020, Russia signed a cooperation agreement in which Sudan leased out part of Port Sudan for 25 years.

At least four ships can dock there at the same time, including nuclear-powered vessels. Around 300 Russian sailors could be accommodated at the port, which could also serve as a maintenance site for Russian ships. Moscow would be gaining a military port in Africa for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Sudan’s Suakin Island, where Turkey may keep troops and intelligence posts based on a 99-year lease signed in 2017. Ashraf Shazly / AFP

But Burhan is emerging as a tough negotiator demanding changes to clauses in the agreement, especially the scope of Russian financial aid to Sudan in exchange for use of the port.

According to reports in Sudan, Burhan received a generous financial offer from the United States for canceling the agreement with Russia, and he’s believed to be weighing his options. No wonder Russia didn’t join the countries that denounced the coup and sufficed with a call for stability and calm.

Turkey, which is also looking for routes to Africa, hosted Burhan in August and later signed economic agreements including the leasing out of millions of acres for agricultural development, which would ensure the supply of fruit and vegetables to Turkey. Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay said in August that Ankara and Khartoum had set an annual target of $2 billion in trade.

Turkey had very close ties with Bashir’s regime. In 2017 Ankara signed a 99-year lease for Suakin Island just off northeastern Sudan. This deal lets Turkey keep troops on the island, build observation and intelligence posts and renovate structures from the Ottoman era.

When Bashir was ousted, Ankara feared that those ties would shatter as they did with Egypt after the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood. But it seems to have learned its lesson, and though Ankara launched a diplomatic war with Sissi, causing the Egyptians economic damage, it’s much more careful with Sudan and is in no hurry to demand that Burhan reinstate the civilian government.

The problem of all the interested parties is that they’re locked between a resolute Washington demanding the reinstatement of the civilian administration and their belief that a military regime in Sudan led by Burhan would better serve their interests.

This dilemma is especially complicated because there’s no certainty the Americans will be able to twist Burhan’s arm or, alternatively, suffice with the illusion of a civilian government.

On the other hand, there aren’t guarantees that Burhan will want or be able to serve the countries that are backing him. Burhan knows he’ll have a hard time running the country without the U.S. economic aid, with a $60 billion budget deficit and millions of protesters demanding the reinstatement of the former government.

He suggested that Hamdok form a new government, but Hamdok declined, insisting on the return of the dismissed government, the freeing of the arrested officials and the upholding of the power-sharing agreement under which leadership of the temporary Sovereignty Council would be passed on to a civilian.

This power struggle puts to the test not only Burhan’s prestige and the good of the Sudanese people. This forsaken neighborhood is the playground of powerful nations.