Sunday, August 25

Sudan Agreement: Has AU blessed coups?


Image result for au and sudanese military junta photos                        Considering the stance by the Africa Union (AU) on coups in Africa, what transpired recently in Sudan pokes holes on this stance. After long-time wrangles, brutalities, massacres and ho-has, the world on Friday 5th July 2019 woke up to the news that the Sudanese Transitional Military Council (TMC) had, at last, reached agreement with the opposition that saw Sudanese long-time potentate Omar Bashir being pulled down. Many still wonder. Why did the duo enter a shotgun agreement that became impossible for months? Did they bow before the pressure exerted from within and outside; or just because one of the duo the military junta agreed for the sake of argument in order to devise more methods of usurping power provided that it has guns under its disposal?

                        First of all, before delving into what seem to be in the store for Sudan, we need to ask ourselves if this is what the Sudanese people sought. Whatever the answer[s] one gets will tell him or her if this is deal is a real deal or just a bad if not a no deal. I once warned that the revolution in Sudan was likely to go haywire and be grabbed as it transpired in the neighbouring Egypt wherein the army robbed the revolution just a year after the mass agitated against and thereof overthrew Hosni Mubarak whose elements, like Bashir’s stepped in and deposed a democratically elected president, the late Mohamed Morsi. The difference however is that in Egypt, the status quo waited for a year. In Sudan, the victory has been snatched from the table even before democracy was applied in charting out the way for the country. This is why many Sudan, especially whose relatives were killed in the demonstration see the agreement as a surrender. For other many, the so-called agreement is the beginning of the revolution because the causes of revolution in Egypt and Sudan are symmetrical by nature, stinking endemic and systemic corruption and failures and long-time economic hardship and failure for the regime to deliver.

             Another cause is the fact that long-time dictatorship normally doesn’t deliver. It plays holier than thou to end up creating the seeds of its own destruction. Naturally, dictatorships fall however long they try to cling unto power. This is because of creating many enemies inside and outside of it not to mention natural decay that they undergo. So, too, dictatorship create a sort of monotony in whatever it does, especially when we underscore the truth that everything either revolves around one person or a group of his/her courtiers in this mutualism of corruption and criminality.

            Geared by criminal history, ignorance and greed for power, the junta in Sudan seems hellbent to cling unto power. The major question one can ask is: Will it survive, and if it does, for how long? Will the current carbuncular civimilitary regime adequately address and solve these problems? Will this setting outsmart the other failed experiment of the Governments of National Unity (GNU)?

            Will the power behind the curtain snatch this opportunity to exploit Sudan? Refer to how three Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in conjunction with Egypt have been pulling strings behind the curtain not to mention being the sponsors of the current military junta they expect to use in many ways including keeping on supplying mercenaries to fight in Yemen and honouring their agreements to lease land in Sudan and produce food for their citizens while Sudanese are going to bed with empty tummies.

            When it comes to the AU, has it surrendered to the coup? What precedent does that set for other ticking countries under dictators? What should we expect?

               Provided that many of those making the TMC are accused of committing genocide in Darfur not to forget maintaining Bashir’s corrupt and notorious regime for 30 years, such criminals will always sabotage the process so as to buy time and thereby, maybe, escape the long arm of justice not to mention being geared by ignorance and greed that they can get away with murder hence keep on milking Sudan as they deem fit.

                Again, will they succeed where their boss Bashir failed despite having all instruments of power under his disposal? Will the international community stay aside and look as if what is ongoing is not one of its business? Where are the powers of the world? Again, who cares about Africa and African things? Will the AU see the light and make a U-turn by coercing the TMC to leave the business of politics to politicians? Will the Sudanese buy into this false wherein the conflict seems to have been postponed? Yes, the conflict has been postponed either because of the fear or wooziness of the parties to it. In conflict resolution, we understand that wherever there is conflict, what we see is but an iceberg. The part we see is just a small portion of a problem. This is why my understanding is that what transpired in Sudan is but the beginning of the beginning of a big problem yet to come. This is because the process has been flawed. Sudanese and their political leaders may hope that things will normalize. How while those with guns are going to have an upper hand in everything?         

Further, the military has no knowhow of economic and political matters. Thus, having such immense power by being a part of the ruling ‘whatever’, they will make matters worse than they are so as to force Sudanese people back to the drawing board. History shows that military juntas tend to depend on bureaucrats to run their show. In Sudan this will be hard provided that those who spearheaded the demonstrations were professionals and experts of all sorts. Therefore, shall the military seek their service, they’ll sabotage it so that the mass rise against it as it was for their master.

 You can take this to the bank. If Sudanese military think that they are going to have a very smooth ride just like their counterparts in the neighbouring Egypt, let them be told that the two cases are completely different.  

To put it in today’s contexts, in Egypt, superpowers from the west have their unabandonable interests, particularly if we consider the centrality of the Middle East with its oil-rich nations not to mention Israel which has always been the project of the West as it created it in 1948. Thanks to regional geopolitics, Sudanese junta will never make it due to the fact that Sudan is Africa however it perceives itself as Arab country. The aid that’s maintaining dictatorship in Egypt will never be forthcoming shall Sudanese stand again against it. So, too, what created this humungous movement is Sudan will never get away without addressing central issues such as tanking economy, unemployment and hardship. More importantly, the force behind Sudan revolution is nothing but the kamikaze youth who have nothing to lose except their chains.

In nutshell, Sudan agreement is still premature to tell exactly what to expect provided that the crux of the problem hasn’t been touched yet. In other words, Sudanese conflict is a hard nut to crack. As for the AU, its stance is not only confusing but also discouraging. And shall it not come forth and rethink it, it is likely to set a very dangerous precedent not only for Sudan but Africa in general.


About Author

Leave A Reply