Masterpiece article. However, there’s another dimension of the conflict, which you either deliberately or unintentionally ignored, the tribal aspect in it.
Therefore, it makes sense that the West is coordinating its effort to restore peace through Egypt and Saudi instead of the African Union. Sudan shares sociopolitical intimacy with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which should be leveraged in the peace talks.
More Arabs died in 3/4 year long Syrian civil war than the hundred year long Israel Palestine conflict. The only good thing about them is that no one kills more Arabs than Arabs themselves.
Well put, as always. I was reading something about how the formation of nation states in general really did not serve the ME and Africa well at all and has a lot to do with the current fault lines. I am curious as to your perspective. https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/people-states-and-borders
Could you please clarify the ethnic cleansing accusations mentioned in your article, specifically in the line: 'Despite its veneer of legitimacy, SAF has targeted civilians and armed a mushrooming array of self-defense forces that have credibly been accused of ethnic cleansing'? The groups you refer to as SAF self-defense forces are, in reality, mobilized volunteers drawn from across Sudan, without any specific ethnic affiliation. Furthermore, the ethnic cleansing massacres widely documented are perpetrated by the RSF in western Darfur and Al Jazirah state. It would be helpful if you could elaborate on the basis of your claims regarding the SAF in this context.
“Although no longer as influential as it used to be, the United Kingdom (UK) was perhaps the best-placed Western country to significantly shape outcomes in Sudan. But London has long decimated its diplomatic clout in the region via austerity and erosion of capacity.”
This I think will be the key - the UK may not have significant capacity left in Sudan, but it will definitely still do so with the UAE (and potentially with Egypt as well given operations in the Red Sea). Given it is the ‘apex predator’ of the two services economies and still has reasonably strong ties with many African countries, it should be possible for it to find a way to exert leverage over the UAE to stop backing the RSF (and is sufficiently motivated by moral concerns to be willing to do so). Without their main financiers, this should hopefully push the two to move towards an actual peace agreement. The trick will be for UK campaigners to stop distracting the Foreign Office by banging on about Palestine, where they can’t do anything, and start focusing on Sudan where they can.
Those articles aren’t exactly credible sources. The Guardian won’t outright lie about anything, but it’s coverage is heavily skewed towards criticising the (now removed) Tory government, and it’s readership are the sorts who will be utterly fixated on Palestine. Any focus you get at all on Sudan will be on the humanitarian angle not the diplomatic one, meaning anything remotely involving negotiations will be seized upon as ‘enabling genocide’ (see their other article on UK negotiations with the RSF). As for Bloomberg, I’m not sure if you actually read beyond the title - the Lord Mayor is utterly irrelevant in the UK (like, D-list royal levels), and the thrust of the article is that the UK already is putting pressure on.
In general, most talk about the UK being ‘broke’ is massively exaggerated by those trying to seem like sensible pragmatic sorts (the UK is currently outperforming its peers in Europe). Public finances aren’t great, but aren’t bad enough to impact on this area of things.
I’d prefer you restrict commentary here to factual debate rather than maligning entire groups of people. It’s a disservice to yourself and to those who want to engage in a grown up discussion.
Well, to be more accurate, you hate Muslims. And no, you don't get any Brownie points from the imperial core for your petty bigotry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_points
An underlying (and I would say fundamental) reason behind all the geopolitical deadly games being inflicted on the hapless peoples in these lands is the wealth in fossil fuels that have yet to be exploited. Perhaps Russia is the only party that has an ample supply thanks to recent discoveries and development in Siberia and Arctic vicinity- China and Western Nations are jostling to gain exploration and development rights in Africa wherever possible. A popular phrase these days is “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!” It’s understandable that the amount of money at stake (MANY billions of dollars). The US military exists primarily to protect the uninterrupted supply and global transport this commodity- and the companies that are extracting and producing these petrochemicals. The planet can’t take much more of this…..
Thank you Ken for your unique insight and ‘perspective’!
Tell me how you (or your relatives) will feel in 50 years when the AMOC has stopped, the Amazon is a sahara, and sea level has risen 10ft. And that is just the things that are likely to happen.
Cc @Claire Berlinski
Masterpiece article. However, there’s another dimension of the conflict, which you either deliberately or unintentionally ignored, the tribal aspect in it.
Therefore, it makes sense that the West is coordinating its effort to restore peace through Egypt and Saudi instead of the African Union. Sudan shares sociopolitical intimacy with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which should be leveraged in the peace talks.
More Arabs died in 3/4 year long Syrian civil war than the hundred year long Israel Palestine conflict. The only good thing about them is that no one kills more Arabs than Arabs themselves.
What are you talking about?
Well put, as always. I was reading something about how the formation of nation states in general really did not serve the ME and Africa well at all and has a lot to do with the current fault lines. I am curious as to your perspective. https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/people-states-and-borders
Great piece, thank you very much.
But it seems to me that some important aspects have been omitted.
Ahmedti and Al Burhan have worked together since the days of al-Bashir and the Jajaweed and Ahmedti had become President Al Burhan's vice president.
However, the article does not say what caused the separation and the conflict.
Nor does it mention the fact that the conflict began, coincidentally, after Sudan granted Russia a military base on the Red Sea.
These data are important to see the general perspective.
Keep the good work.
Could you please clarify the ethnic cleansing accusations mentioned in your article, specifically in the line: 'Despite its veneer of legitimacy, SAF has targeted civilians and armed a mushrooming array of self-defense forces that have credibly been accused of ethnic cleansing'? The groups you refer to as SAF self-defense forces are, in reality, mobilized volunteers drawn from across Sudan, without any specific ethnic affiliation. Furthermore, the ethnic cleansing massacres widely documented are perpetrated by the RSF in western Darfur and Al Jazirah state. It would be helpful if you could elaborate on the basis of your claims regarding the SAF in this context.
“Although no longer as influential as it used to be, the United Kingdom (UK) was perhaps the best-placed Western country to significantly shape outcomes in Sudan. But London has long decimated its diplomatic clout in the region via austerity and erosion of capacity.”
This I think will be the key - the UK may not have significant capacity left in Sudan, but it will definitely still do so with the UAE (and potentially with Egypt as well given operations in the Red Sea). Given it is the ‘apex predator’ of the two services economies and still has reasonably strong ties with many African countries, it should be possible for it to find a way to exert leverage over the UAE to stop backing the RSF (and is sufficiently motivated by moral concerns to be willing to do so). Without their main financiers, this should hopefully push the two to move towards an actual peace agreement. The trick will be for UK campaigners to stop distracting the Foreign Office by banging on about Palestine, where they can’t do anything, and start focusing on Sudan where they can.
The UK is broke, and needs the UAE more than the other way round.
See here: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/24/uk-allegedly-suppressing-criticism-uae-arming-sudan-rsf-militia-genocide-darfur
And here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-30/uae-snubs-london-s-lord-mayor-as-dispute-over-sudan-role-deepens
Those articles aren’t exactly credible sources. The Guardian won’t outright lie about anything, but it’s coverage is heavily skewed towards criticising the (now removed) Tory government, and it’s readership are the sorts who will be utterly fixated on Palestine. Any focus you get at all on Sudan will be on the humanitarian angle not the diplomatic one, meaning anything remotely involving negotiations will be seized upon as ‘enabling genocide’ (see their other article on UK negotiations with the RSF). As for Bloomberg, I’m not sure if you actually read beyond the title - the Lord Mayor is utterly irrelevant in the UK (like, D-list royal levels), and the thrust of the article is that the UK already is putting pressure on.
In general, most talk about the UK being ‘broke’ is massively exaggerated by those trying to seem like sensible pragmatic sorts (the UK is currently outperforming its peers in Europe). Public finances aren’t great, but aren’t bad enough to impact on this area of things.
If you were talking only about London and it's suburbs, I'd agree with you. But the UK is the classic example of what happens when you let the finance sector control the country. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-04-25/the-finance-curse-and-the-british-economy/
WHy would the brits use their clout to meddle in a conflict they don't care about?
ROFLMAO go read literally any history book.
Apparently western country has a government department called "arab babysitters".
What are you talking about?
I'm against the idea of this global community. Just pointing that out in humorous ways. Plus I hate Arabs.
I’d prefer you restrict commentary here to factual debate rather than maligning entire groups of people. It’s a disservice to yourself and to those who want to engage in a grown up discussion.
I don't see how it's a disservice to me but sure.
Well, to be more accurate, you hate Muslims. And no, you don't get any Brownie points from the imperial core for your petty bigotry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_points
You do realise that most Muslims aren't Arabs, right?
An underlying (and I would say fundamental) reason behind all the geopolitical deadly games being inflicted on the hapless peoples in these lands is the wealth in fossil fuels that have yet to be exploited. Perhaps Russia is the only party that has an ample supply thanks to recent discoveries and development in Siberia and Arctic vicinity- China and Western Nations are jostling to gain exploration and development rights in Africa wherever possible. A popular phrase these days is “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!” It’s understandable that the amount of money at stake (MANY billions of dollars). The US military exists primarily to protect the uninterrupted supply and global transport this commodity- and the companies that are extracting and producing these petrochemicals. The planet can’t take much more of this…..
Thank you Ken for your unique insight and ‘perspective’!
Meant to say - “it’s understandable that the amount of money is downplayed and rarely mentioned “
As a citizen of a resource poor country I commend America for maintaining cheap oil for the world. Long live the empire.
Tell me how you (or your relatives) will feel in 50 years when the AMOC has stopped, the Amazon is a sahara, and sea level has risen 10ft. And that is just the things that are likely to happen.
Coal would have caused that anyway. Besides the best climate adaptation strategy is economic growth.