Sudanese Egyptian relations; the crisis behind silence
By Professor Ali Abdalla Ali
May 14, 2008 — The above title is borrowed from a report published in Al Sahafa daily (April 26th.2008) in which the editor tried to reflect on the interventions made by some prominent Sudanese writers on a lecture delivered by the Egyptian Ambassador in Khartoum on 23rd.April 2008, while reflecting of the Sudanese Egyptian relations.
He, the Ambassador was really good intentioned in his lecture, but seem to have tried to avoid any of the major problems between the two countries such problems which we describe as the problems which should not be talked about for a reason or another. The journalist Mubarak Ahmed of Al Sahafa who attended the lecture had this to say under the above title:
“The Sudanese Egyptian relations are often described as being eternal and deep down in history. However this description is always brought to the fore as a pretext to cover up a number of issues and obstacles that stand in the way of the smooth movement of the relation between the two countries. These issues remained folded for very long times in the files which should be talked about and every body should remain silent on it.
Some of these silent issues were mentioned by those who intervened in the discussion that followed the lecture of the Egyptian Ambassador .The title of the lecture was “The Sudanese Egyptian Relations; A new Vision”. The lecture was arranged for by one of Sudan’s studies centres.
The first point raised was the shape of this relation from the point of view of the Egyptians.Abdel Basit Abdel Magid , stated that it concentrated on the economic side to the neglect of other aspects which could help in strengthening the relation between the two countries .However ,according to Abdel Basit , the economic aspects are subject to certain interests that cross each other between the two countries. He added that the choice and concentration on the economic aspect enters the relation in a very wrong choice. It is true that the Ambassador refuted the unidirectional nature of the relation and its concentration on the economic aspects, yet the reality of the situation refutes this claim such that until the moment there are no agreements related to the cultural aspects in order to bring peoples together. The same applies to other aspects. This according to Abdel Basit confirms that Egypt still thinks of Sudan as its Southern backyard that was inherited after the invasion of Mohamed Ali Pasha to Sudan.
The second point was raised by Mohamed Ibrahim Abdo (Kabag) an economist by practice and experience and is considered by the media to hold expert views on economic and financial affairs on the Sudan. He used to be a student of engineering in Khartoum University but was kicked out in the sixites during Abboud’s regime. Mohamed said in his intervention that the eternality of the relation between Sudan and Egypt represent the popular peoples’ views and not that of official Egypt. According to him many expected that Egypt would be more balanced in its political stands because he believed that Egypt always fully supported group opposed to Sudan and at the same time hosts and for many years those Sudanese leaders who form the National Democratic forum (opposition).
The third point was by Dr. Osama Zein Al Abdin, who went on to say that the eternality of the relation is a true way for interaction between people but loses its reality within the official frame. He added that there are many obstacles that are not discussed such as Halaib and also the two influencing factors that of history and culture. He added that these issues are of utmost importance to whoever wishes to strengthen the relations between the two countries.
The fourth point was made by Dr. Fatah Allah Ahmed of the Political Science Department El Nilein University, (previously Cairo University-Khartoum Branch) in an answer to a question as to the absence of a number of issues in the all the meetings that took place between the two countries specially the problem of Halaib, Dr.Fatah said that the emergence of Halaib issue to he surface these days and the refusal to allow the officials of the Fifth Population Census (2008) to enter Halaib and the avoidance of the issue by the political authorities in both countries is a solid proof of short sighted treatment of such files. Dr. Fatah , referred to the fact that the nature of the historical look to the Sudanese Egyptian relations did not receive any in depth analysis and explanations in order to know the dimensions and factors affecting it. Usually such problems come up to the surface at certain moments as part of instant political pressures, which calms down when the degree of impact cools down on both sides. The issue of Halaib does not draw its significance from its size which is about 18000 squire meters, but its significance comes from the assumption of not to let away any piece of land and that this is tantamount to giving away sovereignty of the country. Dr. Fatah added that if we wish to get out of these border problems, we have to take to the European experience which was able to convert these borders and use them as factors of cooperation and integration as well as areas of joint interests in spite of bitter historical feuds between these countries. The border problems between Sudan and Egypt can be solved in such a way as to serve the interests of both sides on condition that it should fundamentally be solved on the basis of equality and transparency and set permanent solutions and should not be left to the politicians and the whims of the ruling elite.
On the future of the relationship, Dr Fatah said that the relationship should be subject to a deep and frank discussion at the official levels, and peoples’ level and also face the delicate issues such as Halaib, Nile Water and other issues with absolute transparency as well as set solutions to these files in such a way as to serve and develop this relationship but not through deferring these issues and deny their existence until other problems come up.
Another article on the same subject was written by Ibrahim Al Yass (a well known banker and previous Minister of Finance) in “Alwan” daily on 28th. April 2008 under the title”Squire 64 in the Chess Game;Halaib..An Urgent Matter !!”.In that article Al Yass wrote the following;
“The Ambassador of Egypt to the Sudan HE.Abdel Moniem Al Shazli in an answer to questions raised by one journalist, answered the first question as regards Cairo Agreement that was signed between the Sudan government and the National Democratic Forum(opposition).The second question related to the file of Halaib (in Northern Sudan on the borders of Egypt from the South Eastern side on the Red Sea).The Ambassador was asked about the Cairo Agreement which was sponsored by the Egyptian government and how does he see its execution in real life? The Ambassador replied by saying that the agreement was only one step. He was also asked that during the coming days (April 2008) the fifth National Census will start and whether they (Egypt) received an application from the Sudan government to carry out the fifth Population Census for the people in Halaib.The Ambassador replied by saying ,’let us not touch on this closed issue !!?This was the answer by the Egyptian Ambassador to the first question. According to him that was the first step and we should not stop at that first step. As for his answer on the second question about Halaib ,’let us not touch on a closed issue’. Then Alyass goes on to say that, “the answers by the Ambassador were evasive, unclear and non-understandable. Why should we not stop at the point of Cairo Agreement? What stops us from following the subsequent developments until we reach conclusions? Why should the issue of Halaib be closed and in what way? On the other hand we notice that announcements by Sudanese officials indicate to their firm stand on Halaib and that their silence on the issue of Halaib does not negate Sudan’s right in Halaib.
Al Yass goes on to say that, we expected the Ambassador of Egypt in Sudan to hasten the execution of Cairo agreement rather that ignore it. As for Halaib issue the Ambassador tends to close the door and considered the issue closed. Moreover, the population Census in Halaib is a sovereign right and the Census is an executive action. Therefore, who holds the sovereign decision in this regard? Al Yass goes on to say that in 1993 the Sudan government carried out the populations Census in Halaib. What is new today?? We go back to the statement by the Egyptian Ambassador about Halaib in which he indicated that there are a Sudanese vision and an Egyptian vision. Therefore, if the matter is still being a question of vision and no definite decision was been reached on the issue by the two sides, then what is the meaning of Egypt occupying Halaib, a step which is by all measures considered as an outrageous attack on Sudan sovereignty. If this the evaluation of Egypt of Halaib issue, what then is the legal basis on which Egypt had occupied Halaib(??) , and what is the legal article issued which stops any mention about the Population Census in Halaib and the statement by the Ambassador that the issue of Halaib is a closed one !!!???
Al Yass goes on to say that the case of Halaib is still under consideration in the files of the Security Council since 1958.The case could be reactivated and the whole issue of the historical Sudanese borders, its legality and its real situation. Al Yass concludes his ideas by saying that the East Peace Group is planning to raise an urgent question about the Census and the reasons for excluding Halaib from the 2008 Population Census .According to some the exclusion of Halaib from the fifth Population Census is a very serious matter and will give Egypt a pretext to continue occupy Halaib. Therefore, they tend to refuse the matter in its entirety and that they will raise the issue of Halaib in the Sudan’s Parliament and the Sudanese Presidency before taking the matter to the Security Council. Here ends the comment of Ibrahim Al Yass.
The above comments made on the utterances of the Egyptian Ambassador in Sudan have prompted me to throw out what I always thought about the Sudanese Egyptian relations as a part of my long interest in Sudan’s regional and international relations specially as seen through the practice and study of Sudan’s balance of payments. When I joined the Research Department, Central Bank of Sudan in the early sixties, I used to follow trade and payments agreements with a number of countries including Sudan’s trade agreements with Egypt. The greater part of Sudan’s trade with Egypt used to be in Camel trade which has been for years conducted by a number of Sudanese traders. I used to come across many complaints from Sudanese exporters as regards their payments by the Egyptian Banks. These exporters used to go through considerable harassment on the part of the Egyptian financial authorities. Moreover, when I was sent to study in Oxford I had to make a choice between doing my research on “The Economic and Trade Relations between Sudan and Egypt -1956-1966” and “Sudan’s Balance of Payments-1956-1966”. Strangely enough I was given an advice by a staff member of the Bank of England (Mr. Curzon) who used to work in Bank of Sudan in the sixties not to take the first one and to dwell on the balance of payments. His reasons were that the Sudanese Egyptian relations were loaded with unnecessary inflexibility on the part of Egyptian authorities and emotions and lack of strategy on the part of the Sudanese. After I came back from UK, I came across a very interesting paper published in ,the Middle East Journal Vol.23,no.1(winter 1969).The author is Tareq Y.Ismail (Egyptian).The Journal is published by the Middle East Institute, in Washington. It is only after I have gone through this very interesting paper, that I came to understand the reasons behind Egyptian attitudes specially that of official Egypt. Although the paper was published in 1969,still its basic findings are still very valid and still seem to guide the attitude of official Egypt towards the Sudan.until today. Dr. Tareq says in the beginning of his paper the following:
“The primary objective of Egypt’s policy in the Sudan is to safeguard strategic interests. The most vital concern by far is the Nile River. The importance of the river as a consideration in Egypt’s foreign policy was graphically expressed by an Egyptian army colonel in 1949:
“No politician can ignore Egypt’s interest in the Sudan. Its permanent and vital interest concerns Egypt’s life. Egypt gets its water from the Nile which flows in the heart of the Sudan. The Nile to Egypt is a matter of life or death. If the waters of this river were discontinued or were controlled by a hostile state or a state that could become hostile, Egypt’s life is over. Of course whoever controls the Sudan naturally controls the Northern Nile Valley. Egypt in this era of conflicting political doctrines cannot trust the neighbours of the Sudan. Today’s friends may become tomorrow’s enemies. For this reason, all of Egypt’s efforts are to insure for herself a secure life in the coming future.”
Dr. Tareq goes on to say that ” The Sudan is a predominant factor in the formulation of Egypt’s African policy. This can be perceived in the light of the fact that the decision –making process is , as of this writing, concentrated in the hands of Nasir and his fellow officers, most of whom grew up in the era during which the Sudan was a dominant factor in Egypt’s national aspirations. Many of them served in the Sudan and some were born there. Also, they are to a large degree strategy oriented, owing to their military backgrounds. Most of them are Staff College graduates and tend to be sensitive more to the strategic rather than to the political considerations in foreign policy. Therefore, it is natural for them to emphasise the Sudan.
Egyptian strategists have dealt in great details with the importance of the Sudan. The primary consideration is that the Sudan controls the sources of the Nile River. There the branches of the Nile meet to form the so-called Great Nile. The salient point is that” any aggressive power that control the Nile sources will govern the waters coming north .Another important strategic consideration is the location of the Sudan. It has an excellent position in the heart of the Continent and is considered a base controlling the region surrounding it , and conceivably, it could control the vital lines of communication that run to and from Africa. Explaining Egypt’s interest in Africa Nasir emphasized the location of the Sudan in the Philosophy of the Revolution, noting that the Sudan’s boundaries extend to the heart of the Continent where it is bounded by neighbourly relations, being the sensitive centre. There is the potential of the underdeveloped human resources. Utilisation of these resources as recruits for his army was one of the factors that motivated Mohammad Ali’s conquest of the Sudan in 1820.Therefore, in view of the struggle of the big powers of influence in Africa and control over the Sudan, Egypt considers it specially vital to keep Sudan neutral. “From then on Dr. Tareq goes on to explain in his very important article the behaviour of official Egypt in reaction to actions that used to be taken by the Sudan’s various governments that alternated between military and democratic governments since independence thus producing alternating attitudes on the part of Egypt given its strategy as explained by Dr. Tareq.
Having known the strategic objectives of Egypt in the Sudan one could go on explaining the various tensions that usually took place in the conduct of the relation between Sudan and Egypt. There are so many aspects that need to be talked about. These include issues such as Halaib, the Nile Water agreement, the Jonglie Canal project, the conduct of the first Director General (Dr.Ibrahim Badran )who became chief of the famous AAAID which was established in mid seventies to make Sudan the granary of the Arab world as well as Egypt’s strategy in South Sudan after the signature of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) etc.etc. All and such other issues need to be discussed in earnest and in depth if the relation between the Sudan and Egypt is to based on a solid ground and a state of win-win situation.. However, I will suffice myself at present to dwell on two issues i.e. that of Halaib which is unlawfully occupied by Egypt for many years and the second issue is that of the recent drive by Egypt and Egyptian investors to invest in Sudan specially in agriculture and other industrial activities by obtaining large tracts of land to grow Wheat in view of the present and expected future shortage in food production and the unusual hike in the price of energy.
Why one is tempted to select at the moment these two issues leaving the rest to some time in future, is simply because they are closely related to each other in a way which must make us Sudanese to raise many questions as shall be explained. Moreover, I belong to a generation that had seen this relation in real operation and one cannot remain silent on it no matter what. As mentioned early I tend to agree fully with those who commented on the issue of Halaib that tract of land on the south eastern borders of Egypt with Sudan. That part of Sudan which had been proved to be an integral part of Sudan when the 1958 crisis took place and Halaib was occupied by the army of late Gamal Abdel Nasir. When Sudan put the issue before the Security Council, the whole world at that time stood behind the Sudan and Nasir had to accept the Security Council decision to postpone the matter until after the Sudanese elections of 1958. The issue was set aside in the Security Council but it was never closed and it is not a closed file between the two countries as claimed by the Ambassador of Egypt in his lecture. It is not closed in any way by the present government in Sudan. This is so because Dr. Nafie Ali Nafie, Assistant to the President of Sudan, said in a meeting held at the University of the Red Sea while he addressing the students that,” Halaib is 100% Sudanese but that we shall not fight Egypt on that…”(Sahafa daily issue dated April 25th. 2008). This shows that contrary to what the Ambassador of Egypt who said that it is a closed file. However, the issue of Halaib is at the moment not a priority for Sudan government because its hands are full with many other problems that need a more urgent attention. Moreover if the government of Sudan decided to put the issue of Halaib before the Security Council, it might not obtain the full support that it was able to obtain 1958 when the issue was tabled before the Security Council. This is because the international community led by USA might not be willing to support the Sudan at the moment because of Darfur issue. However, what is to be remembered is that the Sudan government is very firm on Sudan’s right over Halaib.It remains to be a question of priority.
The second issue is the cascade of Egyptian investors who are filling the corridors of Al Salam Rotana Hotel in Khatoum, are mostly coming with the hope to obtain Sudanese land for various purposes. Incidentally one of these Egyptian investors sold to some other investors and in foreign exchange part of the land that was given to him by the Investment Authority for a specific purpose! They are definitely welcomed after all these years of complete discarding of Sudan as a place for good investment. Moreover, official Egypt is trying to make an agreement with the Sudan government to develop two million acres of land in Northern Sudan i.e. along the northern borders of Sudan to produce enough Wheat to feed the increasing Egyptian population specially after the rise in food prices and the hike in the price of energy all round. The Sudanese people are very generous people and they are ready to sacrifice any thing to let the Egyptian people obtain what they want of Wheat and other food stuff from Sudan, since they are good brothers and, there has been social interaction between them for many decades. It seems that intention of having to develop the area on the border is have the land be tilled by Egyptian farmers. So they do not need to go far inland. Moreover ,once these areas are developed with water due to the Sudan, over the years these areas become automatically controlled by the Egyptian. In addition to the fact that the production of these millions of acres may fully find their way to Egypt unless carefully safeguarded through very clear agreements. The real irony is that this is expected to be accepted by the Sudanese side while Egypt is silent on its occupation of Halaib and considered Halaib as a closed file according to the Egyptian Ambassador in Sudan. Sudan is expected to give a lot to Egypt at a time when Egypt and during all its years of relations with the Sudan never wanted the Sudan to become a strong agricultural country, because that would have made Sudan an economically and politically strong country. Egypt’s wish as stated by Dr.Tareq always wanted the Sudan to remain neutral. Many expected that when the Assistant to the President of Sudan stated that Halaib is 100 % Sudanese that the official Egypt would have made a gesture to Sudan to discuss the issue of Halaib and to solve it amicably, since the Sudan had many other problems at hand. But No and a big No. This is so because official Egypt never relinquishes the cards at hand which it could use to pressurize Sudan within the frame of its strategic philosophy towards the Sudan.
However, it is the sincere contention of this writer that if these and other obstacles are not removed from the course of the relation between the Sudan and Egypt and if such obstacles are not discussed in the open air ,one is positive that no future joint projects will ever succeed. Already some of the agricultural ventures did come through. Egypt cannot hope to cooperate with Sudan and its people and at the same time remain in cold silence occupying Halaib!! If one is not aware of how Egyptian authorities feel strongly about their international borders, one might have kept a blind eye. But Official Egypt and the Egyptians feels very strongly about the borders’ issue. By the same token the Sudan and the Sudanese feel the same about their borders and are not ready to relinquish a single inch unless through very clear and transparent agreements that take care of the interests of both on the basis of a very clear and accepted win-win situation.
The writer is Professor of Economic, Faculty of Business Studies Sudan University of Science and Technology. He is also Editor of www.sudanfinancialtimes.com. He can be reached at [email protected].