What can the U.S. do? Do Western nations have any leverage to stop the fighting? The U.S. played an important role in negotiating a humanitarian pause and opening safe corridors for humanitarian purposes. And it has helped partially, and is useful in the sense that some hospitals that were lacking supplies, started getting them, and things like that. Of course, this is not enough. The leverage is really the crux of the matter. In such situations, leverage can be built as collective action. I think building the basis for a consensus on what needs to be done from the international community, which includes the U.S. and of course the U.N., humanitarian NGOs, the African Union, the European Union and other partners from the region. There are some that can play a diplomatic role, there are those who can play a political role, and there are those who can have a direct impact in the region because they share some direct link. What have your interactions with the rival generals been like? Is there an example of an interaction that's telling about how they operate or their intentions? My interactions with them come from when I was a member of the High Council for Peace. Even at that time, I noted that they were too carried away with their feeling of power. They were intransigent about a certain number of things. For example, General Hemeti [Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo] insisted he lead the talks with armed groups in Juba. He was not qualified to do that and should not have been allowed. General Burhan insisted he play the role of head of state while he was supposed to be the head of a nominal sovereign council. Their behavior, even at that time, showed that they were not going to let the civilians rule. My own impression from dealing with them is that they never had the intention of relinquishing power. And they always wanted to continue to stick to power and allow others to play only a nominal or symbolic role in government, making sure they keep the reins to themselves. The 2021 military coup forced your resignation. What's your take on how Burhan and Dagalo have ruled since then? The government has failed to rule since that time. Since day one, we expected them to fail, and they failed miserably to govern the country and manage political, financial and social affairs, because they are not qualified to rule. They went against the will of the people, and hijacked Sudan at that time when the country was bracing itself for real democratic change. They staged that coup to stop that process. Is there any hope in persuading the two generals to transfer power to a civilian led government? This is going to be very difficult because each side imagines themselves winning the war and imposing their conditions with a full grip on power. They would like to have some relations, create some space for the civilians, but it depends how. The two sides have their own preferences about how the civilians are going to pick and choose a side, and who is going to support them. This will result in a skewed relationship between the military and the civilians. We’re going back to the days when the military are calling the shots and the civilians are just following them, in many cases blindly. So the possibility of going back to civilian rule is very limited to my mind, but I still say it can be done, and it depends on pressure from the international and regional communities on one side, and the determination of the people of Sudan. How do you expect this conflict to affect Sudan’s relationship with other countries? Sudan will now be seen as a dangerous player in the region, an unstable country, not a country to work with and it will take a long time to regain that confidence and support.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment