The US Charge d’Affaires and the Course of Bilateral Relationships

Dr. Hassan Issa Altaleb

The accumulated experiences that top the list of the professional records of any American diplomat nominated for Sudan are counterterrorism, related research, and the intelligence file, especially regarding Jerusalem (Israel). These are the guidelines in the mission journey that the new American diplomat to Sudan –

Ambassador Daniel Rubinstein – must be well-versed in the post-Hamdock period, which was sponsored and planned by America from the early days of the formation of the transitional government in August 2019 until Hamdock’s resignation in January 2022.

Ambassador Daniel has worked in Cairo, Tunis, Jordan, and Jerusalem and headed the American delegation in the recent Jeddah talks between the National Army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) rebel delegation.

America dealt with Sudan during the Hamdock transitional government period with notable interest through its agents and local and regional clients. It sent the director of the American aid agency USAID, Samantha Power, who announced that the Hamdock government would be granted 53 million dollars for democratic transition and for forming the elections committee and humanitarian aid.

However, after the repercussions of October 2021 imposed by the signs of the Sudanese state’s collapse, administrative and economic failure, security and social peace threats and chaos, the military leadership was obliged to dissolve the partnership with the so-called ‘civilians.’ This partnership was built on a division of the spoils between the military and political activists from the Hamdock incubator, in which the Sudanese people were not consulted, did not have an advisory council or parliament and did not gain the approval of most Sudanese. The American government responded, and after the failure of the rebellion’s plan to seize power by force, through the faction rebelled against the army led by General Hemeti, on April 15, 2023, after nearly a year of confrontation, the Biden administration responded by withdrawing its ambassador, Godfrey, from the scene. It declared the end of the first chapter of the Sudan scenario and opened the opportunity for specialists to think about

starting a new path for the post-rebellion phase and the reality of armed

popular resistance that imposed itself on the scene and the popular support for the role of the National Army in decisively ending the rebellion.

The appointment of the new mission chief, Ambassador Daniel Rubinstein, as Charge d’Affaires, indicates a low level of bilateral representation between the two countries. According to the dictionary of bilateral diplomacy, it sends negative signals, indicating dissatisfaction or even displeasure.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration has continued to deal with Sudan since October 2021 as a failed state, prone to terrorism and chaos, citing the warnings of its local Sudanese allies who provide it with these bitter admonitions without fail.

The definition of terrorism, according to American foreign policy, is any behaviour that America does not like or approve of, regardless of whether the person described is armed or unarmed, military or civilian. The US considers any uncomfortable behaviour from any country or group that does not extend its cords of love and loyalty to it and does not appreciate its gifts and extol its honours as “terrorism” and a threat to American national security. Terrorism to Americans is a “homespun” affair.

The United States is usually not accepting of anyone questioning or commenting on its decisions in this regard. It does not accept to be questioned about its actions when it classifies any person, group, or country as ‘terrorist’ and places them on two lists, one for countries called ‘sponsors of terrorism’ and another for individuals called OFAC, which is the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Department of the Treasury, responsible for controlling the funds of foreigners classified as threatening American security or involved in terrorism or both.

In the case of Sudan, the Biden administration believes that the solution to its situation is to empower diaspora groups, especially those with dual nationality, and marginalized sects with Western thought, as well as local groups aligned with them, and politicians seeking opportunities for dominance, at any cost, primarily through compliance and advocacy for the agendas of homosexuals, secularists, and atheists, as well as through American-made and funded volunteer organizations.

However, it is up to the Sudanese people alone, as the source of national sovereignty, to determine their options and roadmap for the future governance of their country and to choose who governs them, how they govern, and by what law. They can be the only ones to chart a path for their sovereignty, glory, and the realization of their aspirations.

The US is a realistic state led by pragmatic policies, and its decisions are based on and change according to the reality on the ground, as it is the criterion that determines the course of its foreign policy.

The current era of the American administration is an era of administrative stagnation, known as the lame-duck period. Somebody will decisively determine the American bilateral dealings with Sudan after the November 2024 elections, which are still characterized by internal public opinion swings, and whether the Supreme Court will allow former President Trump to run again, as most opinion leaders consider him a real threat to President Biden’s chances of getting a second presidential term.