Sudan foreign policy and its impact on internal situation
By Biong Kuol Deng*
1. The current Sudan tragic political saga can
historically be traced to its convoluted and skewed
foreign policy that its confused, in terms of
identity, ruling elites have been propagating and
nurturing since the so-called independence in 1956.
This clear lack of vision and understanding of the
Sudan’s unique position and role in the African
Continent deprived it of its historic status as the
first African country that attained its independence
from the colonial rule (British and Egyptian) and not
Ghana as it is historically and erroneously assumed.
Indeed, Ghana earned its independence in 1957, one
year after Sudan’s independence.
2. Notwithstanding the conclusion of the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement (CPA) and formation of the “Government
of National Unity (GNU),” the ruling elites of the
National Congress Party (NCP) continue to embrace this
parochial and unbalanced foreign policy that is rooted
in the Arab and Islamic world and its adamant denial
and ignorance of the African Continent. A foreign
policy that pities the SPLM, a participant in the
current government of national unity, against the NCP.
Indeed, this political absurdity ushered in the
declaration of our national capital, Khartoum, as the
capital of the Arab Culture in 2005, the year in which
the CPA came into fruition!
3. The ruling elites of the NCP have been
commandeering what is supposed to be national media to
propagate the declared policies of Arabization and
Islamization of the country. Indeed, it saddens one to
watch the programmes of the National TV, which
exclusively focus on the Arab and Islamic issues to
the exclusion of the African issues and concerns.
Judging by the programmes of the National TV, the NCP
ruling elites should kiss goodbye to the notion of
making unity attractive, as espoused by the CPA,
because they should not expect non-Arab and Islamic
Sudanese to embrace a country, whose government denies
their cultural and historical existence. Until and
unless we celebrate diversity, as a source of our
strength, and build a nation that is proud of its
history and existence, the Sudan will continue to be
without peace and stability and may indeed collapse as
a state.
4. As a matter of its survival as a country and a
nation, it is imperative for all Sudanese to continue
genuinely and honestly to identify the root causes of
their predicament as peoples and a nation, lest the
Sudan, we have always known, might disappear from the
map of our great continent. Thus, this critical
challenge calls for extreme and concerted efforts in
addressing remaining national challenges and other
pertinent foreign policy challenges by all Sudanese
and should not be left to those who could best be
described as agents of foreign governments and
organizations since they are more inclined to serving
foreign interests than those of the people they
purport to rule. In this connection, we will not be
able to overcome the current nation-building
challenges that our beloved country is grappling with,
unless and until we all coalesce our efforts in
confronting these challenges head-on.
5. Indeed, the current dialogue in Abuja between the
two liberation movements (Sudan Liberation
Army/Movement ‘SLA/M’ and Justice and Equality
Movement) in Darfur and the Government of the Sudan
and the proposed meeting between the Eastern Sudan
Liberation Movement and the Government of the Sudan in
Libya should wholeheartedly be encouraged and
supported by all with a view to attaining an actual
comprehensive peace agreement in the country. Sudan
cannot be said to be peaceful and stable when the
lives of its citizens continue to be wasted in Darfur
and in the East.
6. Sudanese should search for home made solutions to
their endemic problems. In this respect, in order for
the Sudanese to put their house in order, the post-CPA
government should prioritize the resolution of the
current explosive situations in the Darfur and Eastern
regions. The AU’s initiative should thus be bolstered,
by putting on the table the model that affects the
Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile regions. After all, the
Darfurian movements are not calling for a separate
nation but rather a self-determination that will
ensure that they will be in control of their
development challenges, as a region. Those from the
Eastern region are calling for the same.
7. The resolution of the situation in Darfur, in
conjunction with the AU and UN, should be an entry
point and a foundation on which to craft our foreign
policy that will not only ensure political stability
but also economic development that all Sudanese have
been yearning for since independence in 1956. The
geopolitical situation of the Sudan imposes on it a
role that is critical and challenging with respect to
its immediate neighbors (nine of them), countries of
the Horn, East African countries, COMESA, the African
Union, and the UN.
8. Thus, Sudan, as a country, has a critical role to
play not only in its own stability but also in the
stability of its immediate neighbors, especially those
from the Horn, East Africa, and Africa at large. It is
evident that Sudanese cannot play this strategic and
geopolitical role unless and until they first put
their house in order and thereafter that of the Horn,
East Africa, and hopefully the entire continent and
the world. Our great grandfathers played this role and
there is no reason that Sudanese should not play the
same role again.
9. There is no denying the fact that the foreign
policy of the Sudan since independence and to-date can
best be described as parochial, Africa-phobic, and
absurdly biased toward addressing the Arab and Islamic
world’s issues. The post-war Sudan foreign policy
should therefore incorporate a balanced approach and
prioritize genuine Sudanese national interests, those
of the peoples of the Horn, East Africa, Africa, and
the world in terms of Multi-lateral approach to
addressing its peace and security challenges.
Therefore this foreign policy should have the elements
of the above-strategic vision, which should constitute
its cardinal pillars.
10. Our strategic vision should ask the difficult
questions: why have the countries of the Horn been in
a perpetual instability? Whose interests has this
chronic instability been serving? How could the
countries of the River Nile Basin equitably and
reasonably share the water resources in the interests
of the economic development of their peoples? Could
the peoples of the Horn and East Africa use what they
have in common as a basis of some form of a loose
union? Could the IGAD’s peace achievements in Sudan
and Somalia be used as a nucleus for creating and
building a common ground on which to establish a
strong sub-regional organization? Should the countries
of the Horn join the East African Community?
11. We need to endeavor to find answers to these
soul-searching questions! Without this strategic
vision, our peoples will continue to be the wretched
of the earth and famine stricken human beings. They
have suffered so much throughout our violent and
troubling history and thus it is incumbent on us to
engage in issues, whose resolution would undoubtedly
bring peace and prosperity to them.
12. In this respect, I propose that all political
parties in the Sudan should organize a convention on
the post-war Sudan foreign policy. There is no denying
the fact that the interference of foreign governments
in our internal affairs has largely been responsible
for our wars. Our foreign policy should be anchored in
our distinct diverse cultural identity, which, first
and foremost, rooted in Africa, while not denying some
influences from the Arab and Islamic world. In this
connection, the participation of the indigenous
institutions’ leaders should be ensured, since they
are the custodians of our cultures and heritages, as
peoples.
13. Those concerned should also solicit researched
papers from the Sudanese experts that will articulate
our foreign policy’s challenges and their impact on
our internal political challenges. The Convention
should delineate the cardinal elements of a post-war
Sudan’s geopolitical and strategic foreign policy that
will capture the genuine interests of Sudanese, those
of the peoples of the Horn, East Africa, and Africa.
14. The post-war government, in terms of foreign
policy, should prioritize the resolution of the border
dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. These two
countries throughout our violent political history
have been very understanding and supportive of all the
efforts to resolve our internal conflicts. It is
therefore incumbent on us to assist as much as we can
in bringing about a reconciliation of brothers and
sisters and resolution of the current conflict.
15. Sudan should support the current UN efforts by
dispatching individual Sudanese who are acquaintances
of the two leaders. The Secretary General, Mr. Kofi
Annan, and the Chair of the African Union, president
Konari, should be in the picture with respect to such
efforts. We owe these sisterly countries and their
peoples a great deal and thus it would be necessary
and natural to see to it that they also enjoy peace
and concomitant prosperity.
16. Uganda, on the other hand, has always been our
second home during our turbulent political history
notwithstanding its own political instability. It is
indeed unfortunate that political violence continues
to undermine a relative economic development that the
current government has forged. Although political
grievances of the LRA are not clearly articulated, it
is evident that there are political challenges that
the Ugandan government has to deal with. In this
connection, it would not serve the objectives of peace
in Uganda nor the region to dismiss members of the LRA
as religious lunatics and rebels without a cause!
Thus, the post-war government of the Sudan should
assist in whatever way to ensure that the continuous
political instability in Uganda would not affect our
hard won peace. Indeed, there won’t be a real peace in
Southern Sudan without a relative peace in Uganda.
17. In terms of our bilateral relations with Egypt,
policy makers in the Sudan should always bear in mind
that Egypt was our former colonial state and thus
there is always a condescending attitude on the part
of Egyptians toward the Sudanese. In this regard, the
interaction between Sudanese officials and Egyptian
officials has not always been between equals but
rather between those who are more equals than others.
We continue to have Egyptian officials in our
different cities along the Nile to monitor our use of
the Nile water while we do not have even a single
Sudanese official saddled with the same responsibility
in Egypt.
18. Indeed, our post-war foreign policy should
seriously consider and examine the issue of
reparations vis-à-vis Egypt. Since Ismail Pasha’s
invasion of the Sudan with a view to acquiring slaves
and gold, Egypt has not only been exploiting Sudanese
human resources (many captured Sudanese were sent to
Egypt and recruited into Egyptian army) but also our
vast water resources, which resulted in the tragic
submersion of our historical and cultural city of Wadi
Halfa in the 1950s. The 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Nile
Waters Agreement and the 1929 Egyptian-Sudanese Nile
Waters Agreement gave Egypt almost 90% of the Nile
waters and ignored the Sudan’s water needs in its
northern and western regions. It has actually acquired
a water surplus that it now sells it to its
neighbouring countries, while Sudan’s desertification
rages on because of the availability of limited water
resources!
19. I believe that time has come to be frank and
honest with Egyptian neighbors that there is dire need
to redefine our relations. In this connection, the
current agreement on four issues (freedom of movement,
right to reside in respective countries, right to
invest in respective countries, right to citizenship)
is, for all intent and purposes, null and void since
the decision was made with the acquiescence of one
party, the NCP government in Khartoum! Egypt should
voluntarily withdraw from the Haleeb strip that it
currently and illegally occupies.
20. Regarding our relations with the Arab League,
there may be a need to redefine these relations. The
national interests of the Sudanese people should
always guide our interaction with this organization
and not the interests of the regimes that happen to
have control of affairs in Khartoum. The Arab League
should have offered quite sizeable economic support to
the Sudan; alas, the economic support that has so far
been offered is less than modest.
21. For the Sudan to maintain its membership with this
multi-lateral organization, the Sudanese should call
for the revisiting of the Arab’s League Convention.
One of the articles of the Convention makes it
abundantly clear that: “any person that applies for
any position with the Arab League must have both
parents of Arab descent.” Another Article provides
that: “The Secretary of the Arab League shall always
be a citizen of the Arab Republic of Egypt.” These two
provisions are, of-course, discriminatory and thus
inconsistent with the Article of our Interim
Constitution that clearly provides that all Sudanese
citizens are equal irrespective of race, creed,
gender, social status, ethnicity, and region.
Otherwise, the Sudan should not be a party to an
organization that discriminates against its citizens.
13. The purpose behind these sketchy ideas is to start
to think aloud about some of the foreign policy
challenges, which might have been responsible for some
of our political woes and problems. Planning or
strategizing ahead of time eliminates the elements of
surprise. In the current phase of our political
history, we need to be deliberate, calculating, and
determined in the business of protecting the interests
of our people lest they fall prey again to the whims
of those who do not wish us good at all!
* Dr Biong Kuol Deng is a Senior Researcher at the Africa
Institute of South Africa, Pretoria.