A Year of War: Diplomatic Performance Through an Expert’s Eyes
almohagig – Mariam Abashar
The Sudanese war has completed a full year. It was initiated with expectations that it would not exceed hours. Yet, here it is on the brink of entering its second year, still expanding daily and increasing its cost on all political, economic, and social levels.
Millions of citizens were displaced after being forcibly expelled by the Rapid Support Forces militia from their homes, fleeing in search of safe areas within Sudan. Others preferred to go further away, becoming refugees in neighbouring countries or seeking stability in distant lands.
It is a war that halted the wheel of life, escalated its economic and humanitarian costs, and contributed to its increasing intensity with external interventions and support for a faction that was once part of the armed forces now fighting against it. The war directly affected Sudan’s foreign relations, causing a split in interests and aspirations of countries that Sudan once considered brothers, while new alliances for Sudan emerged. In such an atmosphere, the efforts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to manage external affairs have oscillated between failure at times and success at others, according to experts in the diplomatic field.
A Murky Situation
Foreign policy is primarily the responsibility of the head of state worldwide, as it sets its general course. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (and other political entities) contributes to its implementation, conducts studies, and provides options to decision-makers. Ambassador and diplomatic expert Abdul Rahman Darrar believes that the developments witnessed in Sudan led to the dissolution and complete disappearance of the state apparatus, resulting in the absence of a government known for about two years. Civil service leaders were appointed as “acting ministers,” followed by the absence of political leadership to define the state’s direction, especially in foreign policy. Darrar pointed to the delayed decision of the state to explicitly accuse the UAE, which lasted for about a full year.
Darrar added in his conversation with the Almohagig that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is one of the most affected entities by the absence of leadership (the appointment of a minister, a deputy appointed [Ambassador Dafalla], then his appointment as a representative of the head of state, then his sudden disappearance, for reasons unknown, and there were behind-the-scenes talks about nominating them as ambassadors, then appointing a new deputy. At the same time, the fate of the appointed minister remains unclear…
Darrar also pointed out a clear example of the murky situation, which happened at the Djibouti summit, with the issuance of a statement rejected by the Foreign Ministry, which referred to the retirement of the ambassador in Djibouti for reaching the legal age. Only a third secretary had recently started working at the embassy.
The Wrong Time
Darrar also indicated that, given its importance in this critical juncture, the same mistake was made at the Sudanese embassy in Cairo. The ambassador retired at the wrong time, forcing the state to hastily appoint an ambassador to act as a chargé d’affaires to fill the void (which seems to have surprised the state).
Lack of Vision
The diplomatic expert believes that the lack of vision and leadership hindered the Foreign Ministry from playing its role, at least in extinguishing fires. He pointed out the clear confusion regarding the Jeddah negotiations and the lack of any declared support – whether diplomatic or political – from any party, in addition to the delay in the decision regarding the option of declaring a state of emergency or alert, which, although was originally a purely military action, had clear repercussions on the political line and foreign policy in a known manner.
Revolution’s Share
As for Ambassador and legal expert Seraj al-Din Hamed, he says that Sudanese diplomacy after the “December revolution” was subjected to various types of politically vindictive interventions, such as the dismissal of more than 137 diplomats, administrators, and ambassadors from service because of their affiliation with the previous regime.
Although the Supreme Court annulled these decisions issued by the Committee for Dismantling the former government, those reinstated faced harassment from those who managed diplomatic affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, obstructing their absorption into diplomatic stations, whether bilateral or multilateral. Seraj believes that as a result, Sudanese diplomacy has been severely affected, with dozens of returning ambassadors currently displaced in countries and dozens of critical diplomatic missions without ambassadors or qualified diplomatic staff.
Hamed adds to the Almohagig that the states of displacement and vacuum in missions accurately reflect the state of Sudanese diplomacy under a central government with a narrow vision and capabilities.
Expected Failure
Former Foreign Minister Ibrahim Taha Ayoub firmly believes that Sudanese diplomacy could not have succeeded under the war conditions imposed on the Sudanese people, destroying the essentials of life and displacing citizens from their homes, leaving them wandering as refugees and finding hardship. Ayoub added, saying: “Sudanese diplomacy had no choice but to fail more than other aspects, as Sudan, thanks to the short-sightedness of the political leadership, returned to what it was before the revolution, isolating itself, creating hostilities with neighbours and others, and thus returning to isolation and contention with others.” The former foreign minister believes that “it was not acceptable for Sudan to antagonise Kenya, Ethiopia, and Chad and burn its bridges with the United Arab Emirates, deciding to abandon its membership in the IGAD, then returning to ask it to mediate in attempts to stop the war.”
Ayoub also believes that the lack of diplomatic maturity is evident in the decision to support both sides of the Russian aggression on Ukraine, providing spare parts to the occupiers and political support for the aggressor force! Sudan’s stance towards the United Nations and its agencies is puzzling to observers as if Sudan is not a member.
Ayoub also sees that a reason for diplomatic failure is due to the weakness of the administrative leadership in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Glimmers, but…
Despite the talk of failures, some see that extraordinary efforts have been made by Sudanese diplomacy. A diplomatic source spoke to the Almohagig about the successes, which he said were in maintaining the cohesion of the Sudanese diplomatic institution. He pointed out that the diplomatic institution could divide and create internal disputes within embassies in similar circumstances.
However, the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs succeeded in making the required cohesion and expressing a unified voice for the government, the armed forces, and the people. This, according to the source, is a great achievement, in addition to the success of diplomacy in exposing the extent of violations, crimes, and the reality of the plot as targeting the Sudanese state and people.
The foreign factor played a major role in this, as the Ministry limited all harmful foreign political interventions, whether from organisations or any other entities.
The Greatest Achievement
As for the greatest achievement, according to the diplomatic official, it lies in the liquidation of UNAMIS and the removal of UN envoy Volker Perthes, considering that they contributed to the outbreak of the war through their failure to accomplish transitional tasks and insistence on imposing specific political views, leading to igniting the war.
Additionally, diplomacy succeeded in stopping calls that emerged at the beginning of the rebellion, such as the call for an air embargo, the imposition of a demilitarised zone in the capital and the entry of African forces. These calls were made in some meetings, even at the African Union and IGAD levels. Diplomacy also succeeded in countering statements from leaders of neighbouring countries, indicating that Sudan has no leadership.
According to the source, who preferred to withhold his name, diplomacy succeeded in facing these claims, and Sudan and its leadership remained cohesive and recognised as leadership. This was evident in the participation of the head of the Sovereignty Council in UN meetings in September of last year and in his regional and international tours, which strengthened the government’s legitimacy and defeated the bet of some to undermine the government’s legitimacy and encroach on the sovereignty of the country.
Decisive Position
According to the source, the decisive position was taken against IGAD because it used parties outside the continent to impose solutions and intervene harmfully in Sudan. The Sudanese membership was frozen, and its engagement in IGAD activities was suspended.
No Failure, but…
The source denied the existence of failures, but he mentioned that some things limited the extent of the achievements so that the performance could have been better. He pointed out that the foreign role and intervention at the UAE level and mercenaries’ activities still need further methods and highlighting. Moreover, the war has created an economic crisis that has hindered the work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as many missions operate below their capacity, limiting their movement and area of influence, as some embassies make efforts, but the limited resources hinder their work.
Another Challenge
Another challenge facing diplomacy is addressing the problems of Sudanese refugees in some countries due to the war. Many of them have reached some neighbouring countries and are facing difficulties obtaining visas, residence, and visits. This challenge requires missions’ efforts in coordination with the host governments and relevant international organisations, as well as understanding from Sudanese refugees and caution so that they do not fall victim to crisis merchants.