Suchergebnisse

Ending the war in Sudan will require real Sudanese dialogue and carving out a new political course. Nada Wanni argues that any Sudanese dialogue will be intensely contested particularly at this time of war. Wanni warns against a controlled, manufactured process, run by a political and economic elite which will only reproduce the conflict and political crisis in different forms. This will bring neither peace nor stability to Sudan or the region.
The post Sudanese Dialogue and Political Processes at a Time of War: People, Participation, and Power appeared first on ROAPE.

Diplomatic initiatives led by Western actors have counter-productively entrenched the anti-democratic forces now fighting for control in Sudan. To drive real change, the West needs to empower Sudan's democratic movement and undermine the power of armed factions.

Sudanese civilians have become caught up in a conflict between two military factions struggling to gain complete control of the country.

On 29 April 2023, Sudan's Federal Ministry of Health reported that the death toll from clashes between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces had risen to 528, with thousands injured. The consequences ...

Since the breakout of war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) last April, Sudan has been engulfed by fighting that has displaced millions and led to the deaths of thousands of people. The conflict followed a power struggle between the leaders of the SAF General Abdel […]
The post Peace in Sudan: A Path Towards Negotiation appeared first on International Republican Institute.

In the past four months, more than 2.4 million Sudanese people have fled their homes due to ongoing conflict, and the number continues to increase. A series of failed ceasefires and a growing humanitarian crisis begs the question: how are local pro-democracy actors sustaining their efforts? For the past ten years, Resistance and Change Committees […]
The post "Even a tank cannot stop the breaking dawn": Resistance and Change Committees in a Warring Sudan appeared first on International Republican Institute.

For over a year, Sudan has been engulfed in one of the world's most violent civil conflicts. The war has ravaged the country and now risks spreading beyond its borders, engulfing the wider region in a destabilizing, protracted conflict.Like most international players, the United States initially responded slowly to the war in Sudan, but President Biden appears to be taking the situation more seriously, having recently appointed former Virginia congressman Tom Perriello as U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan. Perriello — who previously served as Special Envoy to the Great Lakes region during the Obama administration — will lead talks between warring factions and concerned regional parties with the goal of reaching a lasting peace agreement and paving a path for the creation of a civilian government.Since his appointment, Perriello has been pushing to restart the on-again, off-again peace talks that have been based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In an interview with Responsible Statecraft, he expressed hope that the formal peace talks would restart sometime this month. "We are eager to start them tomorrow," Perriello said. Delaying them further, he warned, risks making Sudan "look more like a failed state that could become a 10- to 20-year crisis like we've seen in Somalia, but in a country much larger and in a very strategic location."The risks of this conflict spreading arms and refugees throughout East Africa and the broader Gulf has attracted regional powers' attention to both sides of the conflict. The UAE has reportedly provided military support to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), while Egypt and Iran have reportedly supported the government's de facto military, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), including by providing drones. Alex de Waal, an expert on Sudan and East Africa and the Executive Director of the World Peace Foundation, told RS that the growing complexity of the conflict means that the African Union (AU) or other regional bodies like Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) can't solve it alone. Rather, according to de Waal, ending the conflict requires a widespread diplomatic effort involving all major actors across Africa, the Gulf, and important international bodies, like the U.N.Perriello shares this perspective, saying he and his team have "been working particularly with some of the neighboring countries and other key African leaders to help communicate to the world and to other key regional actors that this is headed to a truly disastrous situation of a more factionalized, ethnicized war that is more likely to bring in neighboring countries that have overlapping populations." "For those who focus just on the regional stability concerns," he added, "this has now crossed over into being a very serious strategic crisis."Perriello says African countries are sounding the alarm to other regional actors and beyond: "don't light this fire, don't pour fuel on this fire, this is something that could burn us all. We have got to rein this thing in before it becomes something that goes past the point of no return."Perriello also said any lasting peace deal "shouldn't be a … way for former corrupt officials or extremist elements to backdoor their way into power." "I don't think some sort of power-sharing arrangement between the two sides is in anyone's interest," he added.Ultimately, however, the United States may lack sufficient leverage to determine the makeup of a post-war Sudanese government largely due to the involvement of extra-regional actors, such as Saudi Arabia — where the formal peace talks will be held — as well as the UAE, Egypt, and Iran, all of which have provided military support, therefore implicating them in the war's outcome. As a result, Washington should expect these states to advocate strongly for their own interests during the peace process. This means that Washington may have to live with a compromise that satisfies at least some of the demands of key domestic and foreign actors.Perriello admitted that although regional and global actors are increasingly inclined to end the war, "the two fighting sides are negotiating primarily through guns" and lack strong political will to end the conflict. Indeed, the war has created one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters in years. More than 8 million people have been displaced and human rights groups have documented widespread human rights violations committed by both sides. Among these include forced enlistments, the burning of homes and other property, sexual violence, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians.With over 1.8 million Sudanese now refugees in neighboring states, the security situation is closely interlinked with the dire humanitarian crisis. De Waal says that the humanitarian system is "collapsing." In the past, he said, Sudanese refugees could expect to receive a "modicum of peace and security" in neighboring states. That's no longer the case, as those countries are now dealing with their own intense security and governance challenges, and are struggling to provide the resources needed to support the dramatic influx of recent migrants.Perriello expressed frustration that "there has just not been enough aid, enough food and medicine sent" to Sudan and the surrounding region. In response, many Sudanese have worked at a local level to increase access to humanitarian aid and deliver money through the creation and proliferation of digital cash apps to help transfer critical funds to support the purchasing power of those struggling to afford food and other necessities. The humanitarian sector is also struggling from a lack of funding. "Even in areas like Chad that have been quite welcoming of humanitarian organizations, [refugees] are not getting more than one meal a day," Perriello lamented.The need for humanitarian support seems to now resonate across the West. Just a couple weeks ago, major European governments met in Paris to discuss increasing the financial support for humanitarian aid in Sudan. They jointly announced that they had raised $2.1 billion to support the humanitarian response. Before Paris, the U.S. had provided more humanitarian aid than any other country, having provided $115 million in 2024 so far.Perriello spoke repeatedly of the importance of uplifting the voices of the Sudanese people, saying that "we think the most important thing is for the negotiation to be as centered on the Sudanese people as possible." Although this sentiment has value, the claim that the United States speaks for and represents the interests of the Sudanese people is not always a view shared by those in Africa.Tying the threads of this conflict together will prove to be a difficult task for Perriello and his colleagues. Yet, the United States deserves credit for engaging diplomatically with regional and domestic players in an attempt to end the war before it grows to an even greater scale.

In his long-read, Husam Osman Mahjoub delves into the UAE and Saudi Arabia's influence in Sudan, emphasizing its impact on the war and democratic aspirations. He outlines the intricate relationships and interventions in Sudanese affairs, highlighting the pivotal roles played by both countries. Mahjoub discusses historical events and diplomatic maneuvers that shaped the region and its conflicts, shedding light on the complex dynamics. His analysis underscores the urgent need to address the UAE's involvement in supporting the RSF militia to halt the ongoing war in Sudan.
The post Exposing the murderers – the UAE involvement in the war in Sudan appeared first on ROAPE.

In the editorial for the current issue of ROAPE, Elisa Greco writes on the surge in the price of food and role of speculation on food markets, and how this is impacting the lives of the poor across Africa and the world. These trends in global political economy have had a direct and dramatic impact on the course of events in Sudan since 2019. Greco unpicks the consequences of global shocks on Sudanese politics, the recent war and resistance.
The post Keeping eyes on Sudan – keeping eyes on austerity first appeared on ROAPE.
The post Keeping eyes on Sudan – keeping eyes on austerity appeared first on ROAPE.

War has devastated Sudan since it first broke out on 15 April 2023. What started as a power play between the country's two most powerful armies, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has since metastasized into a major civil war. International actors have not paid this war the high-level attention it requires and deserves. This blog explains why international actors need to pay more attention to what is happening in the strategically located country at the crossroads between the Red Sea and the Sahel, between the Arab and African worlds. The war threatens Sudan's integrity as a state, displaces millions and draws in neighbouring and other regional countries, all in a region already in turmoil because of coups, insurgencies and violent extremism.

The ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) is a pivotal event in the modern history of Sudan. With hundreds, possibly thousands of civilians killed in the conflict, there has been a deep sense of horror particularly in Sudan's capital Khartoum, resulting in 2.5 million residents of the city fleeing to nearby regions of Sudan, or neighboring countries Chad and Egypt.For those remaining in Khartoum, fear and anxiety are constant, as gunfire, heavy artillery, and smoke rise above the city, fighter jets fly at low altitude over residential areas. The current war will have a devastating mental health impact, in addition to its many fatalities and physical injuries. Children in particular are more likely to suffer severe depression, flashback and post-traumatic events as a result of exposure to the horrific violence and abuses.Exacerbating these anxieties is the use by both the SAF and RSF of psychological warfare. Through social media, both sides have shared graphic content from the battlefield, intended to intimidate their opponents and influence public opinion in their favor. Much of this content has been impossible to verify independently. The SAF has struggled to gain legitimacy with the public, discredited for being part of the former regime of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan's long-time former dictator. The SAF leadership claims to be fighting for stability in Sudan, despite allowing the proliferation of former regime-backed militias since the ousting of Bashir in 2019.Meanwhile, the RSF leadership has used media outlets to claim they are fighting against the SAF for being part of the former regime. Their stated intention is to restart the process of handing power from the military to civilian politicians in the framework agreement signed with the Forces of Freedom and Change, which came to an end with the military takeover in October, 2021. However, the RSF's claim is grossly misleading, as the RSF has been accused of committing genocide in Darfur since 2003.In both cases, the message is clear. Each side wishes to give the perception that it is winning the war on the ground. But, neither has been strong enough to achieve outright control of Khartoum. Hence, they merely seek to mislead people who are not residents of the city.The current war in Sudan arguably represents a long power struggle between the RSF, currently led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo or "Hemedti," and remnants of the Bashir regime that dominate the SAF, headed by Lieutenant-General Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan. Since the Bashir regime was toppled, its supporters have used the transition period to organize.The SAF has targeted activists, members of resistance committees and politicians with arbitrary arrests and accusing them of backing the RSF. Over the last four years, they have waged a war against Sudan's demand for democracy. Effectively blocking all political efforts to ensure a smooth post-2019 transition, they have sought to prevent the outcome of a credible civilian democratic government. They have instigated violence, attacked civilians, and portrayed the revolution as a project planned in the West to divide Sudan.Furthermore, the SAF's leadership has made use of Sudan's lucrative black market to sabotage any economic progress. They have done so through raising the foreign currency rate against the Sudanese pound and creating shortages in the country, prompting the Sudanese people to feel economic pressure and protest against the civilians in power, providing justification for the military counterparts to launch their takeover. The emergence of numerous militias was encouraged, and the security forces that once maintained the Bashir regime's security turned a blind eye to crimes such as robbery, burglary, and aggravated bodily harm.Historically, the SAF is the oldest security institution of the state, and civilian political parties have used it to capture power in 1958, 1969 and 1989. After al-Bashir's coup in 1989, the Sudanese Islamists Movement, precursor of the National Congress Party (NCP), stacked senior officer positions in the SAF with their supporters.Simultaneously, the regime created various security institutions and militias to counterbalance the threat of a further coup, and to crush rebellions in outlying areas of Sudan. One of these security forces was the RSF, which originated in the early 2000s as the Janjaweed, Arab militiamen used by Bashir to defeat insurgencies in Darfur. Most Janjaweed fighters were of the Rizigat tribe, which includes the Mahria branch of which Hemedti is a member. In 2017, Sudan's parliament passed the Rapid Support Forces Act legitimating the militia. When Bashir felt threatened by his competitors within the NCP, he summoned the RSF to Khartoum to protect him; ultimately, it was the RSF's desertion of Bashir which sealed his regime's fate.After Bashir was toppled in 2019, Burhan became the president of Sudan, appointing Hemedti as his deputy in August 2019. Burhan's focus was on staying in power and preventing the transition to civilian rule. Burhan feared that out of power, he may be prosecuted for his claimed role in the Darfur genocide alongside Hemedti. To reduce any possibility of being ousted, he empowered Hemedti by abolishing article 5 of the RSF Act, allowing the RSF to act independently of the SAF command structure, while establishing loose ties to Burhan. Hemedti was able to increase the number of his forces from 20,000 to over 100,000, most being trained in SAF camps in Khartoum. The RSF was tasked with protecting strategic sites in Khartoum, including the presidential palace, general command, Khartoum airport, and the building of Sudan's Television and Broadcast Corporation. Burhan also retired several SAF generals who had criticized the expansion and new roles of the RSF.Ironically, Burhan's focus on staying in power resulted in his clash with Hemedti, who had his own presidential ambitions. Over time, Burhan and Hemedti started to compete with one another, regionally and internationally. Hemedti cemented his ties with Russia through the Wagner Group, a relationship with its origins in Bashir's request for Russia's help in protecting his regime in 2017. In 2018, it emerged that Wagner was contracted to train the regime's security forces, including the RSF, in riot control.Hemedti's relationship with Wagner expanded through gold smuggling operations that helped Russia offset the sanctions for its invasion of Ukraine, and the RSF's support and Hemedti's influence for Wagner's extraction of resources in the Central African Republic (CAR). In January 2023, Hemedti used his forces to close the Sudanese-CAR border, to prevent CAR opposition forces from using Sudanese territory. Wagner has supplied the RSF with anti-aircraft missiles that have deterred the SAF from attacking its positions in Khartoum in the current conflict.The RSF-Wagner relationship has deepened as a result of both paramilitary groups' relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE is a key destination of Sudan's mineral resources, for example receiving 40 percent of Sudan's gold exports. Geopolitically, Wagner, Hemedti and the UAE are all backers of Libya's Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar. Hemedti sent 1000 RSF fighters to support Haftar's attempt to take over Libya's capital Tripoli in 2019, when Egypt refused to send ground forces to support Haftar despite also being an ally. There are indications that, in return, the UAE has been supporting Hemedti and the RSF in Sudan's current conflict.Burhan has also developed close regional alliances. Burhan received military training in Egypt, and the Egyptian Armed Forces today sees the SAF as the only institution that can hold Sudan together, and represent Egypt's own interests in the country. The Egyptian leadership deeply distrusts Hemedti and the RSF, who they view as a mercenary group with no loyalty to the state. Egypt has accordingly provided the SAF with covert air defence aid in its current conflict with the RSF.Burhan also uses his position as the president of Sudan, and commander of the SAF, to win the backing of Saudi Arabia. Strategically, Saudi Arabia needs to ensure the security of its Red Sea investments that are part of its Vision 2030. Saudi Arabia has also proven to be interested in investing in and deepening trade relations with Sudan, putting it in competition with the UAE's influence represented in Hemedti and the RSF.The current conflict has militarily incapacitated the forces of both Burhan and Hemedti, with Khartoum becoming a graveyard for their soldiers. The fighting has shown that both sides are just interested in cementing their own regimes in a post-conflict scenario. It remains to be seen how civilians will be able to resist whichever party, with its regional backers, emerges victorious from the violence, and continue Sudan's long journey towards democracy.

Slavery was vile - common but vile. We're all agreed the world is better off for its absence. Even as we note that there are still pockets of it still extant. Arab Sudanese were at least credibly accused of going slaving in 1990s Darfur, there are relationships between Twa and surrounding Bantu groups that would be difficult to describe as other than slavery.However, to repeat a point we've made before. If the descendants of slaves are now better off as a result of their ancestors' slavery then it's simply not possible to pay reparations to those who are already better off. It's simply a logical impossibility. The president of Guyana has called on descendants of European slave traders to offer to pay reparations to right historical wrongs.Irfaan Ali also demanded that those involved in the transatlantic slave trade and African enslavement be posthumously charged for crimes against humanity.With a GDP per capita approaching $10,000 the people of Guyana are some four to five times better off than the genetic source in, say, Ghana. It's simply not possible to atone for that. Therefore the reparations argument fails.Do note, again and just for the avoidance of doubt. Slavery was a bad thing. Those who were enslaved suffered horribly. But it is not possible to pay reparations to their descendants because those very descendants have been made better off by that historical slavery. That grifters can see a wallet they might be able to prise open is a useful political argument but it's not a valid basis for public policy.

On the morning of April 15, 2023 in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan,the country's de facto national army, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) took up arms against one another. Through temporary ceasefires and multiple attempts by foreign countries and international bodies to mediate an end to the war, the fighting persists.
Over the past year, the civil war has created one of the world's most severe humanitarian crises. Thousands have been killed and over eight million have been displaced. With over 6.5 million people internally displaced, Sudan is home to the highest number of internally displaced people in the world. Relentless fighting has forced many to leave Sudan entirely, with 1.5 million having fled to neighboring states as refugees.
The regionalization of this conflict is risking further destabilizing the wider Horn of Africa and Gulf regions, with regional powers now becoming involved. The UAE has reportedly provided military weapons to the RSF while Egypt has reportedly supported the SAF. A recent report suggests Iran is providing drones to SAF forces, which has helped them regain lost territory in and around Khartoum.
As more players become implicated in the military outcome of the war and as the humanitarian crisis deepens, the war is becoming increasingly complex and layered. Yet, at its most basic level, this conflict is of a genre as old as war itself. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who heads the SAF, and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (commonly called "Hemedti"), who leads the paramilitary RSF, are vying for power. Each is hoping to be the sole leader of Sudan.
Though now rivals engaged in a vicious war, Al-Burhan and Hemedti were once allied military leaders. In 2019, the two worked jointly to overthrow the country's long-time dictator, Omar al-Bashir, who had led the country since 1989. Following the successful coup, street protests erupted calling for a rapid transition of power to a civilian-led government. On June 3, 2019, the SAF and RSF responded violently, killing over 100 people in Khartoum. During the massacre, over 70 men and women were raped by RSF personnel.
Following international pressure, in August 2019 the military leaders agreed to allow for the formation of a transitional military-civilian government — the Transitional Sovereign Council — with elections scheduled to be held in 2023. But in October 2021, just over two years after the formation of the transitional government, the two military leaders again worked together to overthrow the government and regained full control over Sudan.
As the two sought to establish a governing structure in the months after this second coup, differences emerged between the two leaders' visions for the future of Sudan's government.
Al-Burhan sought to allow many of the political elites formerly allied with al-Bashir to reenter government. Hemedti, a Darfuri Arab, opposed such a plan, concerned that reinstating the old political guard would eventually return Sudan to a governing structure too similar to that which they overthrew, and erode his standing in the face of political elites who look down on those, like him, who are from Darfur.
Another essential point of disagreement was in the plan to unify the two armed forces into a single national force. Al-Burhan, whose SAF serves as the de facto military of the country, demanded that Hemedti's RSF force integrate into the SAF within two years. Hemedti, however, wanted the integration period to be spread out over a decade, giving his paramilitary more autonomy in case conflict resumed.
Following months of rising tensions, Hemedti deployed RSF forces to strategic locations throughout the country, including Khartoum, in anticipation of armed conflict. In the early hours of April 15, 2023, the RSF attacked SAF bases across the capital, including at the city's airport, signaling the start of what would turn out to be the region's most devastating conflict in many years.
Despite having fewer fighters, in the year since the civil war began, the RSF has successfully gained control over much of the capital and large portions of the country's western provinces in the Darfur region.
As conflict has spread, civilian suffering has reached levels unprecedented even for a region well acquainted with war, displacement, and humanitarian disaster.
The humanitarian toll is hitting children the heaviest. UNICEF estimates that 24 million children are at risk of "generational catastrophe." Of these, 14 million are in dire need of humanitarian support and 3.7 million are acutely malnourished. With 19 million children out of school, the long-term effects on the mental development of children will continue long after the war has ended.
Despite the massive humanitarian challenges facing the Sudanese people, international humanitarian support has fallen far short of what is needed. OCHA — the U.N.'s humanitarian agency — estimates that out of the $2.5 billion needed to fund a sufficient humanitarian response in 2024, only $155.2 million has been received thus far, amounting to just 6% of the needed support for this calendar year. The U.S. has provided 10% of that humanitarian aid. For 2023, OCHA says that 51% of the total funding needed for humanitarian relief was received.
The humanitarian crisis has been augmented by both armed groups committing widespread and severe human rights abuses across the country. Both forces have summarily killed civilians and ransacked cities, looting and then destroying unwanted property, including homes. The RSF and SAF have also both forcibly enlisted men and boys, threatening to kill them if they refuse to fight.
A U.N. report determined that between May and November of last year, the RSF committed at least 10 attacks against civilians in El-Geneina, the capital of West Darfur province, killing thousands, most of whom were part of the African Masalit ethnic group. The report also reveals that by mid-December, at least 118 people — including 19 children — had suffered from sexual violence, including being raped and gang raped by members of the military and paramilitary forces.
Throughout Darfur, the RSF has demanded that women leave their homes, forcing many to flee west to bordering Chad. The paramilitary also singles out men, and sometimes boys, systematically killing them one-by-one as they try to escape. Attacks specifically perpetrated against the Masalit community have spurred conversations about whether Darfur is again the site of a genocide.
Despite the remarkable levels of devastation and widespread displacement, the international community has been slow to respond. Relative to other conflicts, many far less devastating than the war in Sudan, this war has received limited media attention and has not been prioritized by countries outside the region. Yet, as the crisis worsens and as the effects spread beyond Sudan's borders, foreign governments have increased their attention over the past few months.
On February 26, over 10 months into the war, the Biden administration announced the appointment of former congressman Tom Perriello as Special Envoy for Sudan. Tasked with leading the U.S. government's efforts to resolve the conflict, Perriello — who previously served as U.S. envoy to the Great Lakes region during the Obama administration — has traveled on multiple occasions to the region where he has engaged civil society groups and regional governments in a dialogue with the hope of restarting peace negotiations.
As the war enters its second year of heavy fighting, Perriello will find it difficult to tie the conflict's many threads together and mediate an end to the war. But with a growing chorus of Sudanese civilians and many throughout the region pleading for an end to the conflict, the Biden administration has done well to increase its focus on ending the war through diplomatic engagement — a sign to those in East Africa that the U.S. is committed to rolling up its sleeves and leading the effort to achieve long-term peace in the region.

Hamas's attack into Israel and massacre of Israelis, followed by Israel's war of obliteration on Gaza backed by the United States, is a political earthquake in the Middle East. Its tremors are shaking up the politics of the Horn of Africa, bringing down an already tottering peace and security architecture. It's too early to discern the shape of the rubble, but we can already see the direction in which some of the pillars will fall.The most obvious impact is that the Israel-Palestine war has legitimized and invigorated protest across the wider region. Hamas showed that Israel was not invincible, and Palestine would no longer be invisible. Many in the Arab street — and Muslims more widely — are ready to overlook Hamas's atrocious record as a public authority and its embrace of terror, because it dared stand up to Israel, America, and Europe.Hamas's boldness has given a shot in the arm to Islamists, such as Somalia's al-Shabaab. As the African Union peacekeeping operation in Somalia draws down, al-Shabaab remains a threat— and will likely be emboldened to intensify its operations both in Somalia and neighboring Kenya.Kenyan President William Ruto gave strong backing to Israel while also calling for a ceasefire. For the U.S. and Europe, Kenya is now the anchor state for security in the Horn — but it desperately needs financial aid if it is to shoulder that burden.The war is consuming Egyptian attention and terrifies President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who is treading a fine line between sponsoring pro-Palestinian protests and suppressing them.Red Sea SecurityThe Red Sea is strategic for Israel. One quarter of Israel's maritime trade is handled in its port of Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba, an inlet of the Red Sea. Eilat is Israel's back door, vital in case the Mediterranean coast is under threat. Israel has long seen the littoral countries of the Red Sea — Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia — as pieces in the jigsaw of its extended security frontier.Historically, Egypt has shared the same concern. Last year, revenues from the Suez Canal were $9.4 billion— its third largest foreign currency earner after remittances from Egyptians working in the Gulf States and tourism. Neither Israel nor Egypt can afford a disruption to maritime security from Suez and Eilat to the Gulf of Aden.The Red Sea is also the buckle on China's Belt and Road Initiative, with China's first overseas military base — strictly speaking a "facility" — in the port of Djibouti near the Bab al-Mandab, the narrow straits between the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. More than 10 percent of world maritime trade is carried on 25,000 ships through these straits every year.Having long neglected its Red Sea coastline, Saudi Arabia has reawakened to its significance in the last decade. In the 1980s, amid fears that Iran might block tanker traffic through the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia built an east-west pipeline from the Aqaig oil fields to the Red Sea port of Yanbu al Bahr. Its strategic significance is back in focus.In parallel, the United Arab Emirates is well on track to securing a monopoly over the ports of the Gulf of Aden, which forms the eastern approaches to the Red Sea. It has de facto annexed the Yemeni island of Socotra for a naval base. The UAE is looking for a foothold in the Red Sea proper, and a string of satellite states on the African shore.All these factors intensify the scramble for securing naval bases in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Djibouti is already host to the U.S.'s Camp Lemonnier along with French, Italian, Japanese, and Chinese facilities. Turkey and Russia are actively seeking bases too, focusing on Port Sudan and Eritrea's long coastline.Empowered Gulf StatesWell before the recent crisis, the Horn of Africa was becoming dominated by Middle Eastern powers. This process is now intensified. Decades of competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran for alignment of Sudan and Eritrea has swung different ways. Sudan's General Abdel Fattah al-B­­urhan, formerly political partner of Benjamin Netanyahu and signatory to the Abraham Accord, cut an ill-timed deal with Iran in early October, to obtain weapons, which has embarrassed his outreach to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. More recently, Turkey and Qatar's regional ambitions have clashed with Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, especially over the Muslim Brothers — supported by the former, opposed by the latter. The latest emerging rivalry is between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.Saudi Arabia has positioned itself as the regional anchor. While running for president, Joe Biden called Saudi Arabia a "pariah." But it is now indispensable to the U.S.Among the Arab states. the UAE has been the most restrained in condemning Israel for its actions in Gaza. It has also said that it doesn't mix trade and politics— meaning that it will continue to implement the economic cooperation agreements it signed with Israel following on from the Abraham Accords. The UAE is also positioned at the center of the U.S.-sponsored India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC), unveiled at the September G20 summit in India as a response to China's Belt and Road Initiative.The UAE also has a free hand in the Horn of Africa, and in the last five years it has moved more rapidly and decisively than Saudi Arabia.Sudan's Fate between Riyadh and Abu DhabiAfter the eruption of war in Sudan in April, the joint Saudi-American mediation was in large part a gift from Washington to try to mend fences with the Kingdom. Talks in Jeddah resumed in late October, with the modest agenda of a ceasefire and humanitarian access, and a pro forma "civilian track" delegated to the African Union, which has shown neither commitment nor competence.Meanwhile, the Emiratis are backing General Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, known as "Hemedti," who is currently driving the Sudan Armed Forces out of their remaining redoubts in Khartoum. This followed more than six months of fighting in which Hemedti's Rapid Support Forces gained a reputation for military prowess and utter disregard for the dignity and rights of civilians. Despite widespread revulsion against the RSF, especially among middle class Sudanese, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed al Nahyan, known as MBZ, stuck with his man.In charge of the ruins of Sudan's capital city, Hemedti will soon be in a position to declare a government, perhaps inviting civilians for the sake of a veneer of legitimacy. What's holding him back is the ceasefire talks in Jeddah. His rival, Gen. al-Burhan is meanwhile floating a plan to form a government based in Port Sudan — raising the prospect of two rival governments, as in Libya. The real negotiations there are between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. If the two capitals agree on a formula, the U.S. and the African Union will applaud, and the Sudanese will be presented with a fait accompli.Ethiopia Goes RogueIn Ethiopia, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed's rule is underwritten by Emirati treasure. MBZ has reportedly paid for Abiy's vast new palace, a vanity project whose $ 10 billion price tag is paid for entirely off-budget. Abiy told lawmakers that this bill was none of their business as it was funded by private donations, directly to him. Other megaprojects in and around the capital Addis Ababa, such as glitzy museums and theme parks, have similarly opaque finances.Ethiopia's wars have depended on largesse from the UAE. Ethiopian federal forces prevailed against Tigray, forcing the latter into an abject surrender a year ago, on account of an arsenal — especially drones — supplied by the UAE. Abiy is currently rattling his saber against his erstwhile ally, Eritrea, demanding that landlocked Ethiopia be given a port, or it will take one by force. The likely target is Assab in Eritrea, though other neighbors such as Djibouti and Somalia have been rattled too.Eritrea unexpectedly finds itself as a status quo power and is relishing this role, tersely expressing its refusal to join in the confusing discourse from Addis Ababa. It suddenly has allies in Djibouti, Somaliland, Somalia and even Kenya — all of them threatened by Abiy's bellicosity.If Abiy does invade Eritrea, he will violate the basic international norm — the inviolability of state boundaries — and risk plunging his already failing economy deeper into disaster. This will pose a sharp dilemma for the UAE. It is ready to override multilateral principles, but whether it would bail out its errant client in Addis Ababa, and jeopardize its winning position in Sudan, is a different matter. It would also present Saudi Arabia with the dilemma of whether to back Eritrea's notorious dictator, President Isaias Afewerki.America and the Pax AfricanaPeace and security in the Horn of Africa isn't a priority for the Biden administration. Despite a rhetorical commitment to a rule-based international order, Washington has neither protected Africa's painstakingly-constructed peace and security architecture nor brought the Ethiopian and Sudanese crises to the U.N. Security Council.While the American security umbrella was in place over the Arabian Peninsula, the countries of the Horn of Africa had the chance to develop their own peace and security system, based on a layered multilateral structure involving the regional organization, the InterGovernmental Authority on Development, the African Union, and United Nations, with peacekeepers and peace missions funded by the Europeans. This emergent Pax Africana was already imperiled as the U.S. drew down and the Middle Eastern middle powers became more assertive. President Donald Trump authorized his favored intermediaries — Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE — to pursue their interests across the Horn of Africa. The Biden administration has not pulled that back.It's possible that the administration cares about peace, security and human rights in Africa. But for as long as the U.S.'s Horn of Africa policy is handled by the Africa Bureau at the State Department — whose diplomats scarcely get the time of day from their counterparts in the Gulf Kingdoms — Washington's views will remain all-but-irrelevant. The Horn of Africa doesn't make the cut when staffers prepare talking points for President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken or national security adviser Jake Sullivan to speak to their Arab counterparts. It's a prioritization that leaves the region in a deepening crisis, at the mercy of ruthless transactional politics.America's well-established practice of treating Israel as an exception to international law is rubbing off on Israel's allies and apologists across the Middle East, who are actively dismantling the already-tottering pillars of Africa's norm-based peace and security system. Those African countries most in need of principled multilateralism are paying the price.

For the Arab Gulf kingdoms, the Horn of Africa is a strategic perimeter. They want to minimize political threats — some are hostile to Islamists, all want to suppress democracy movements. Anticipating a post-carbon and food insecure world, the Gulf States want to possess rich farmlands. Each has its own vision of African client states that will do their bidding. This is a recipe for proxy wars, state fragmentation and autocracy in northeast Africa.For the Horn of Africa, today's crises are existential. War, dictatorship and famine are causing state collapse. The African Union is compromised, its peace and security system unravelling. The United Nations is retreating from peacemaking, increasingly reduced to a bare-bones humanitarian provider.The dangers were illuminated by the surprise New Year's Day deal between Abiy Ahmed, prime minister of Ethiopia, and Muse Bihi, president of the self-declared Republic of Somaliland, a breakaway region of northwest Somalia. Ethiopia has been renowned for careful diplomacy, including championing the inviolability of existing boundaries. After fighting wars with Somalia in the 1960s and '70s, Ethiopia had learned to be circumspect and consultative in its dealings with Mogadishu.Last week, Ethiopia upended that tradition. It promised to recognize Somaliland as an independent sovereign state, in return for Somaliland leasing it a 12-mile stretch of land, including a seaport, that will allow Ethiopia to establish a naval base. This in turn unleashed strong words from Somalia — which had not been informed ahead of time. The AU called for Ethiopia to treat Somalia with respect. Fears of new conflicts were stirred. Unsaid in public is that the UAE is widely suspected to be the patron of the deal.For the United States, crises in the Horn of Africa are a sidebar to the ongoing Israel-Gaza war and the confrontation with Iran. Gunboat diplomacy in the Red Sea — the warships deployed under Operation Prosperity Guardian to protect shipping from attacks from the Houthis in Yemen — is the priority.The narrow strip of water carries 12 percent of world seaborne trade. For sailors, the Red Sea is "a sea on the way to somewhere else," its shores at best an inconvenience, at worst a security threat.There's a global consensus on keeping the shipping lanes open. If the Red Sea shuts down — as happened following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war— the knock-on effects on trade between Europe and Asia would be economically severe. The EU-run Operation Atalanta runs an anti-piracy flotilla involving warships from 13 European nations, (including the UK, which provided the flagship until Brexit), working with ships from Ukraine, India, Korea and Colombia.After a few years the flotilla commanders concluded that the solution to piracy lay onshore, in the form of diplomacy to resolve Somalia's conflicts and economic assistance to provide livelihoods to impoverished fishermen. That was a step in the right direction.Saudi Arabia chairs a Red Sea Forum that includes eight littoral states (all except Israel), to tackle piracy, smuggling and marine resources — not political issues.Six years ago, Thabo Mbeki, the former president of South Africa who chairs the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel for the Horn of Africa, introduced the term "Red Sea Arena." The idea was to create a diplomatic forum that would include not just the littoral states, but all the other countries with vital interests in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden or with political and commercial links across the narrow strip of water.The former AU Commissioner for Peace and Security, Ramtane Lamamra explained: "The Red Sea has historically been a bridge rather than a divide, with the peoples on the two shores sharing culture, trade, and social relations." Egypt has millennia-old interests in the Nile Valley and both shores of the Red Sea. Ethiopia has a vital interest in access to the sea. The UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Turkey all have historic or current interests.Regional and global power struggles are played out in the Red Sea Arena. Seven nations including the U.S., China, Turkey and the UAE have naval bases there. Others, including Iran and Russia, have warships in the vicinity and are actively seeking bases. The port of Eilat in the Gulf of Aqaba is Israel's strategic back door, as the Houthi attacks on shipping have dramatically shown.The plan for a standing conference of Red Sea Arena states built on proposals contained in the World Peace Foundation report to the AU, "African Politics, African Peace" — for which Mbeki and veteran UN diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi co-authored the preface. The idea was that Middle Eastern states should sign on to the principles of the AU's peace and security architecture and establish joint mechanisms for cooperation.The AU failed to act on these proposals. Nor were they raised at the UN Security Council.Instead, Arabian Gulf states are increasingly assertive in the Horn, and they're bringing an aggressive form of transactional politics, including funding proxies to fight wars. The U.S. — whose security umbrella sheltered the Red Sea for decades — seems uninterested.Saudi Arabia has long seen the African shore of the Red Sea as part of its security perimeter. Qatar and Turkey sought influence in Sudan and Somalia, especially among the Islamists. Israel has discreetly sought a determining role in the region.But the key actor is the UAE. A small, rich state, it uses proxies to project power, and supports separatists in disregard of international norms. Abu Dhabi's clients include key players in Libya and Chad, and it is positioning itself as kingmaker in the Horn. The UAE supports and arms Ethiopia. It already controls many ports in the region — including, it is suspected, the proposed Ethiopian port and naval base in the land leased from Somaliland. But Abu Dhabi has yet to clarify its strategic goals for the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.The UAE has long had a free pass in Washington. Only recently has the U.S. begun to criticize Abu Dhabi's adventurism in Sudan, calling out its arming of the murderous Rapid Support Forces there.The last decade has been a rollercoaster of hope and horror for the peoples of the Red Sea Arena. Popular uprisings in Yemen, Ethiopia and Sudan all descended into lethal brews of autocracy, war, atrocity, and famine, with local conflicts escalating into proxy wars. Guided by the short-term imperative of staying in power — and by the ambitions of cash-rich foreign sponsors — today's leaders are too often short-sighted and transactional.Under UN and AU guidance, a raft of peace agreements was crafted to serve as the threshold for democracy. Today a peace pact, such as the threadbare "Permanent Cessation of Hostilities" that ended Ethiopia's war in Tigray, may be no more than a truce. The principle of the primacy of politics — that served Africa's peace agenda well — has come to mean short-term transactionalism rather than a commitment to democracy, good governance, and inclusivity.A key African norm was "sovereignty as responsibility," developed by the Sudanese/South Sudanese lawyer and diplomat Francis Deng. Today we have its antithesis, decried as "neo-sovereigntism" by the Cameroonian philosopher Achille Mbembe.Today's regression means that Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki is being rehabilitated. For 30 years, Isaias has ruled an iron fist, with no constitution let alone political parties or an open media, hoping that the tide of global liberalism would recede. He looks to be proven correct.Sudanese General Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, known as "Hemedti," commander of the Rapid Support Forces, the insurgent paramilitaries notorious for their human rights abuses, is touring Africa in a Royal Jet airplane (an Emirati airline). He arrived in Addis Ababa last week where he met Prime Minister Abiy. Extending protocol to Emirati-backed disrupters is the new normal in the region.To the extent that it functions at all, the AU is becoming the face of illiberal multilateralism, veering away from its founding principles. The UN's practice of deferring to its regional partners leaves it eviscerated. The InterGovernmental Authority on Development — the eight-member northeast African bloc — is now deeply divided and approaching paralysis.With the Horn of Africa and Yemen slipping far down the priority list in Western foreign ministries, America and Europe are sending mid-ranking diplomats into the snake pit, woefully under-armed for the perils they encounter. Too easily intimidated by swaggering local despots, perhaps swayed by zombie "Pan Africanist" slogans that challenge their right to talk about human rights, they have left their countries irrelevant in the face of ruthless Gulf power-broking.Recent developments could not have been anticipated in detail. But American diplomats saw the broader challenge some years ago. In 2020, a bipartisan "senior study group" on the Red Sea convened by the United States Institute of Peace, prioritized a broad diplomatic strategy for the Red Sea Arena. The USIP report warned that conflicts in the region could threaten U.S. national security and proposed a high-level envoy with a broad mandate.The Biden administration quickly appointed a special envoy for the Horn of Africa, but the Africa Bureau at the State Department soon downgraded the position. The cost of this strategic neglect is becoming clear today.There's still a chance for a diplomatic forum that promotes collective security. Washington has lost its best opportunities to take a lead — any U.S. initiative today will arouse deep suspicions among others. Middle Eastern powers don't, as a rule, propose collective action, and the Gulf states are divided. The Europeans will follow, not lead.The onus of leadership then falls on Africa and on the United Nations. Acting together, they can create a consensus that brings on board America, Europe, China, and Russia in a forum framed by the agenda of a stable and cooperative Red Sea Arena.