On July 10, the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Affairs published a lengthy article by Mr. Alberto Fernandez, Vice President of the Middle East Institute for Media Research, on Sudan entitled (Sudan on the Edge of the Abyss: An Inevitable Fall or a Better Way Forward?), In which Fernandes discussed the risks Which threatens the transition process in Sudan more than a year after the fall of the regime of President Al-Bashir, and urged his government to speed up the pace to avoid the situation that is about to collapse, hoping to support a democratic model in the region that is trying to revive.
It is clear that Fernandez, who previously held the position of the US Chargé d’Affairs in Khartoum between 2007 and 2009, and before that held the position of Sudan Office Officer at the American Information Agency during the period between 1990 and 1992, wanted to reinforce the view that the administration should act The American government in a way that allows it tangible support that maintains the hope of democratic transformation in the hearts of the Sudanese instead of keeping the administration captive to the situation that binds it and which it created with its own hands, which is placing Sudan on the list of support for terrorism, as this would – according to the article – weaken the civilian leadership For the transitional period in Sudan in favor of the military component, and spread frustration among large sectors of the Sudanese who believed that once the former regime was gone, Sudan would be removed from the US list of support for terrorism.
And in a move that appears to be coordinated with the preamble, which may have been brought about by the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs article, and other articles published in the New York Times and Foreign Policy dealing with Sudan and the deteriorating economic conditions And security in the country, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about urgent issues in the region, including the situation in Sudan, where the minister stated that he “wants to remove the name of Sudan from the list of terrorism, and that the peaceful transition that the country is experiencing represents a historic opportunity. “He added that there was no significant obstacle left to the step of removing Sudan from the list of support for terrorism, except for the completion of the compensation deal for the families of the victims of the bombing of the Washington embassies in Nairobi and Dar Al-Salam in 1998, where Sudan is accused of facilitating the movements of the elements that carried out those bombings, so the logic of the American administration must Sudan , Who suffers from high inflation above 130, and whose national currency is constantly deteriorating, and is struggling to provide free currency to buy medicine, food and fuel, to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to the families of those victims, until the road becomes clear. Ka to be removed from the US terrorism support list.
There is a close connection between the two issues of achieving comprehensive peace and removing Sudan from the list of support for terrorism on the one hand, and the two issues of political stability and economic growth on the other hand. Sudan, known for its great resources in various fields, has been suffering from economic hardship and scarcity in living since the secession of its south in 2011.
The issue of removing Sudan from the list of support for terrorism was one of the pressing issues, as was the case for achieving comprehensive peace, when Dr. Abdullah Hamdok took the oath as Prime Minister of Sudan for the transitional period, on August 19 last year; The masses of Sudanese believed that only a few months would pass, and peace would be achieved, and the name of Sudan would be removed from the list. The groups that were carrying arms in the face of the previous authority were part of the political alliance that overthrew the regime, and people expected their leaders to rush to come to Khartoum and engage in an arrangement The institutions of the transitional period, and they also expected – and they are right – that the Sudanese have no connection with terrorism or its support, and that putting Sudan on that list is a matter related to the previous regime and its Islamic orientations, and it should disappear with its demise. But the facts on the ground went against those expectations.
There is a close connection between the two issues of achieving comprehensive peace and removing Sudan from the list of support for terrorism on the one hand, and the two issues of political stability and economic growth on the other hand. Sudan, which is known for its great resources in various fields, has been suffering from economic hardship and lack of living since the secession of its south in 2011, and the main reason for The state’s inability to exploit these resources is the US economic blockade that was stripped against Sudan for 20 years (1997-2017), and when it was lifted in the early period of President Trump, that step had no effect on reality. Because the name of Sudan remains on the list of support for terrorism, and it was most likely that peace would be achieved within the first 6 months of the beginning of the transitional period, and that Sudan would not remain on the list of support for terrorism except for the same period or less, and that in light of this it would be able to achieve integration He will be invested in the international system, and he will be poured into investments that will eliminate his economic stumbling blocks, and here is a year that has passed since Dr. Abdullah Hamdok assumed his duties, while hopes for achieving those aspirations seem to be hovering in place, and the impact of the Corona pandemic on the economic conditions in Sudan has been made worse Especially, which made the capabilities of decent living among large social segments of the Sudanese difficult.
The brink of the abyss that the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs article warned about, its features are not limited to stalling steps to achieve comprehensive peace, and the procedures for removing Sudan from the list of support for terrorism are not delayed, but extends to include the increase in tensions and civil conflicts in Darfur and eastern Sudan, and these facts have formed Collectively, the concerns of large sectors of the Sudanese, who were longing for the first anniversary of the start of a civilian leadership assuming the reins of executive work in their countries, and their country had gone a long way in the path of democratic transformation, which was a major goal of their revolution.
The hopes that the Sudanese placed on their revolution, in the events of a real democratic transition, which seemed to be around the corner a year ago, are now threatened by great dangers, and the prospect of transformation seems to be blocked again in light of the basic issues remaining without solutions
However, the concerns of the Sudanese did not stop there. Rather, I add to it the state of division that struck the forces of the Declaration of Freedom and Change, the “political incubator” of the institutions of the transitional period, which led the revolutionary movement that ended with the overthrow of the Salvation System. The former regime, and the troubles of the ruling coalition did not stop at this point, as successive statements were issued by the executive and party leaderships criticizing the performance of the ruling institutions in the transitional period, headed by the Council of Ministers, describing it as a failure. The Sudanese Congress Party, and Muhammad Hamdan Dagalo, Vice President of the Sovereign Council.
And this is how the hopes that the Sudanese placed on their revolution in the events of a real democratic transition seemed to be around the corner a year ago, now threatened with great dangers, and the prospect of transformation seems to be blocked again in light of the basic issues remaining without solutions, and with the escalation of the pace of civil conflicts and the deterioration of the economic situation The renewed divisions between the political forces, which are competing to share power in the institutions of government at the federal and state levels, which reshuffled the cards again, and may be exploited by internal and external parties to underestimate the democratic trend, and facilitate the task of imposing a totalitarian regime with a new facade on the Sudanese.