(Report: Sudan Gateway)
The current landscape is witnessing significant shifts in the stances of the African Union (AU) and IGAD regarding the war in Sudan. The African Peace and Security Council (PSC), chaired by Egypt in its current session, issued recommendations following its delegation’s visit to Port Sudan from October 1-4. In a statement released the day before yesterday, it called for the implementation of the Jeddah Declaration of Principles and urged the evacuation of citizens’ homes and the lifting of the siege on El-Fasher. However, the PSC’s statement did not present anything new to Sudanese people, as it simply reiterated what Sudanese Army Commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has been insisting on for the past year and a half as a condition for negotiating with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Furthermore, the PSC called for establishing a liaison office in Port Sudan to offer technical support and to open informal discussions with the authorities in Port Sudan regarding Sudan’s suspended membership in the AU, according to the statement.
In response, the Foreign Ministry in Port Sudan quickly welcomed the PSC’s statement, under the pretext that it provided “internal solutions to African problems,” and announced its agreement with the priorities outlined in the statement. This was interpreted by observers as Egypt’s first move towards lifting the suspension of Sudan’s AU membership.
These developments coincided with remarks from Djibouti’s Foreign Minister, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, whose country hosts the headquarters of IGAD. During his visit to Port Sudan on October 14, 2024, Youssouf described the war as being imposed on the Sudanese Army by the RSF, which he referred to as a “rebel militia”—a term aligning with Egypt’s recent statements following accusations by RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo that Egypt was involved in the conflict.
:Reactions
So far, the only public reaction has come from the Coordination of Civil Democratic Forces (Tagaddom), which, through its spokesperson Bakri Al-Jack, described the PSC’s statement in a press release as “illogical and hasty.” He stated that the statement legitimizes the de facto authority in Port Sudan while failing to address the violations committed by the armed forces, focusing instead on RSF violations. He pointed out that the conflict, which began on April 15, has been marked by widespread violations by both sides.
:Egypt’s Loss of Neutrality
Egypt, having assumed the presidency of the PSC earlier this month, seems to be leveraging its position within the AU to retaliate against the RSF, which accused it of being involved in the war alongside the army and of bombing civilian areas where the RSF is stationed.
A Sudanese political analyst based in Cairo, who requested anonymity, told us that Egypt has lost its eligibility to participate in any regional or international body working to mediate an end to the war in Sudan. Egypt’s neutrality has been called into question due to allegations of its involvement in the Sudanese conflict, based on accusations from one of the warring parties (the RSF). These accusations cast doubt on Egypt’s stance on all matters concerning the war in Sudan, particularly after the RSF’s recent statement claiming that they captured Egyptian soldiers, whom they referred to as “mercenaries,” fighting alongside the Sudanese Army.
Egypt has yet to issue an official response to this serious accusation, reinforcing the suspicion of the prisoners’ existence and, consequently, Egypt’s involvement in the conflict.
Egypt, now speaking as a key member of the AU and emphasizing its strategic interest in Sudan’s stability, asserts that it is working within the AU framework to promote peaceful solutions. However, according to multiple Sudanese political sources, Egypt is pursuing intelligence-driven agendas under the guise of diplomatic missions, seeking to secure its own interests in Sudan, which depend on a decisive military victory for the Sudanese Army.
:Corruption and Personal Gain Allegations Against Djibouti’s Foreign Minister
Sudanese observers believe that Djibouti’s Foreign Minister, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, may be driven by personal ambitions to succeed “Moussa Faki” as the AU Commission Chair, which raises suspicions about his recent statements in Port Sudan.
According to a Sudanese diplomatic source, there are signs that Youssouf might be involved in corrupt dealings with figures from Omar al-Bashir’s former regime, who currently support the army. These ties increase doubts about the credibility of his recent efforts to lift Sudan’s AU suspension—not as a regional desire to resolve the crisis, but as a strategic move to gain Khartoum’s backing for his future candidacy.
:The AU’s Bias Towards the Sudanese Army
The bias of both the AU’s PSC, chaired by Egypt, and the representative of Djibouti, which hosts IGAD, towards the Sudanese Army is becoming increasingly evident. This is demonstrated by the PSC’s statement and its recommendations, as well as Youssouf’s recent comments.
These positions and statements reflect a clear bias in favor of the army and raise concerns about the impartiality that these regional organizations are expected to maintain.
Moreover, it seems that both the PSC and IGAD are hastily working to reintegrate Sudan into the “regional fold” by opening an AU office in Port Sudan. This move appears to recognize the legitimacy of Sudanese Army Commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s authority.
:Conclusion
The recent actions of the PSC and Djibouti’s Foreign Minister reveal the significant influence of Egypt on African decision-making. Despite Egypt’s overtly peaceful rhetoric, it is backing a military solution to the war in favor of the Sudanese Army. This has become apparent in the latest AU assumptions, which regard the army as the likely victor in the conflict. These assumptions, however, are biased and inaccurate, as military dominance on the ground does not guarantee a final resolution to the crisis or an end to the ongoing war. Military solutions are often short-lived, and returning to the negotiation table is essential to achieve a comprehensive and lasting settlement.
It is evident that both the PSC and IGAD are relying on military superiority to resolve the conflict, but they are overlooking the critical importance of a balanced political solution. Conflicts are only truly resolved at the negotiating table, with success dependent on the timing and conditions under which negotiations occur.
