MEKKI ELMOGRABI
Rookie
- May 14, 2016
- 34
- 21
- 1
Normalization could change the “rigid political mentality” in Sudan and pave the way for democratic transformation, but the US move was a victory for extremists and hardliners.
Mekki ELMOGRABI
Head of US-Sudanese Relations Section
The Sudan Center for Think Tanks and Strategic Studies (SCTTSS)
In October 2021, the Biden administration withdrew its assistance from the normalization between Sudan and Israel, which was initiated by the Trump administration during US-Sudan talks. Biden administration’s decision was justified by putting more pressure on the Sudanese military to bring back the civilian-led government. Two months later, the civilian Prime Minister Abd-Allah Hamdok signed an agreement with the army commander, President of the Sovereignty Council Abd-AlFatah Al-Burhan, and resumed his duties. There was no change in the US stance on Sudan, then Hamdok resigned and Sudan’s normalization with Israel remains in limbo.
Was Biden’s decision beneficial for Sudan’s democratic transition and for US-Sudan relations? Or was it the exact opposite? Normalization is perhaps the most powerful motivation to break the Sudanese political deadlock and improve US-Sudan relations. In a paradox, Biden turned the remedy into a punishment.
Bringing Sudan closer to the United States in political, economic, and military cooperation means not only an improvement in relations between the two countries but also a country with strong influence in the Eastern and Central regions in Africa (22 African countries) will be able to escape the “Debt Trap” and “Bear’s Grip” and become an ally of the United States.
First time Khartoum cut relations with Washington was in 1967, Who made that and why?
In this article, I will address the issue of normalization between Sudan and Israel and its role in strengthening the democratic transformation and social freedoms in Sudan, it also offers more opportunities for Sudan’s integration into the global economy.
In the 1990s, Washington imposed sanctions on Sudan and placed the sub-Saharan country on the terror list. After two decades, things have begun to change, with Washington lifting economic sanctions in 2017 and removing Sudan from the terror list in 2020, but the expected improvement has yet to materialize. Given the context, it is not surprising that even in the prime 1970s and 1980s before the tension, Sudan did not become an economic partner of the United States, even though the country was incredibly well placed to be the United States’ best friend in the heart of Africa.
It should be noted that the first time Khartoum broke diplomatic relations with Washington was in 1967, which was done by voting in a democratic parliament and with the support of the fathers of Sudanese independence. Right, center and left took part in the decision.
Granted, Sudan was not the only country to cut ties with the United States because of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but Sudan made the same difficult decision to cut ties with Britain because of another similar African problem and affirms the presence of a rigid and “no compromise mentality” in Sudanese politics which was not created by the Islamist regime of June 1989.
Some believe that the real change after the December 2018 revolution in Sudan is the growing awareness of democracy and social freedoms, especially among young Sudanese. It is true that it was a great success, but not a new one. Similar changes have taken place in previous generations and Sudanese parties have failed to translate those historical achievements into democratic practice and social change. Sudan has gone through three democratic periods and witnessed two public revolutions in October 1964 and April 1985. In all previous eras, Sudan has not changed internally or in its external relations.
Here is the deal, there is a change that breaks this vicious cycle and paves the way for a new political mentality to replace the rigid, Sudan needs a modernized political mentality that can strengthen the democratic transformation in Sudan and bring more stability to the new politics of the economic market.
This change is normalization with Israel, or rather ongoing and serious Sudanese-Israeli talks leading to normalization that can positively contribute to the democratic transition, better relations with the United States, and the integration of Sudan into the global economy. Halting the normalization process was an unfortunate and unfavorable decision that could amplify extremism, as extremists always react to any kind of US intervention: “They don’t even want us as friends”!
Will normalization with Israel bring the expected change in one step?
No, but it will remove the biggest obstacle in the way of real change. What will happen can be summed up in the slogan “Sudan first” raised by the proponents of normalization with Israel, which means that Sudan’s interests are more important than historical issues and ideological constants.
Sudan Response to Biden’s Decision and the Way Forward.
During his participation in the UNGA in September 2022 in New York, General Burhan confirmed his willingness to visit Tel Aviv if invited. An informed source previously told the writer that Burhan’s advisers told him to keep the door open and wait for Washington to reconsider its policy and not respond to the US negatively, “they will find out the decision was wrong and the US administration missed the opportunity,” the source said.
Sudan’s real problem was not with the United States or the Western world, it was and still is an internal problem. The rigid mentality was again very apparent when normalization talks within the ruling FFC alliance began in 2020, with the process opposed by activists who received support from Western countries during their period of opposition to the former regime. These activists and politicians came to power with the blessing of the West, based on the misunderstanding that the rigid mentality in Sudanese politics was only made by radical Islamists, while it is the other way around, it is the mentality that has created radicals on both sides, right and left. The solution lies in normalization with Israel and the market economy because this is the direction that brings real change.
The first time US-Sudan relations were severed was in the 1960s, the national parties dominated parliament, the Umma party had 90 members, the unionists had 60 members, and the Islamists had only three members and they had no influence on the decision-making process. The communists had 9 members but they controlled the trade unions and labor syndicates. The tendency to sacrifice Sudanese economic interests and relations was strongly linked to the political mentality, change had to start in this area not somewhere else.
In fact, this tension in Sudan’s foreign relations is not only with the United States, as there are no stable relations for Sudan with Western countries in general. There is an urgent need to analyze this matter aside from the answers prepared in advance because those who give these answers are the same groups and individuals who make benefit from the tension between Washington and Khartoum, and therefore they prefer to mislead US political community and the administration and to reduce all the causes to a specific party rather than changing the political mentality including their portion in maintaining the rigidity. Sudan was ruled by all parties right, left, and center, and is now stuck in this situation; near to America and still far away, there are reasons to improve relations with the United States and to enter into an economic partnership and again nothing happens. This situation needs a real explanation of what is happening in Sudan’s foreign relations in general and in relations with the United States in particular.
The main obstacle hampering Sudan’s relations with the United States and the Western world, in general, is the strong tendency of Sudanese political elites to maintain and enforce ethical principles and positions at the expense of national interests and economic cooperation with the West.
From the US side, the level of understanding of the real problem in Sudan is always less than needed. The US administration needs to revisit its policy on Sudan.
The most important issues in Sudan for the US decision-makers should be the progress in the free economy policies and the real change in the Sudanese political mentality. Human rights issues are at the top of the list, but the required change has not happened, the reason for this is the rigidity of political elites, including human rights activists who are allied with Western organizations
Mekki ELMOGRABI
Head of US-Sudanese Relations Section
The Sudan Center for Think Tanks and Strategic Studies (SCTTSS)
In October 2021, the Biden administration withdrew its assistance from the normalization between Sudan and Israel, which was initiated by the Trump administration during US-Sudan talks. Biden administration’s decision was justified by putting more pressure on the Sudanese military to bring back the civilian-led government. Two months later, the civilian Prime Minister Abd-Allah Hamdok signed an agreement with the army commander, President of the Sovereignty Council Abd-AlFatah Al-Burhan, and resumed his duties. There was no change in the US stance on Sudan, then Hamdok resigned and Sudan’s normalization with Israel remains in limbo.
Was Biden’s decision beneficial for Sudan’s democratic transition and for US-Sudan relations? Or was it the exact opposite? Normalization is perhaps the most powerful motivation to break the Sudanese political deadlock and improve US-Sudan relations. In a paradox, Biden turned the remedy into a punishment.
Bringing Sudan closer to the United States in political, economic, and military cooperation means not only an improvement in relations between the two countries but also a country with strong influence in the Eastern and Central regions in Africa (22 African countries) will be able to escape the “Debt Trap” and “Bear’s Grip” and become an ally of the United States.
First time Khartoum cut relations with Washington was in 1967, Who made that and why?
In this article, I will address the issue of normalization between Sudan and Israel and its role in strengthening the democratic transformation and social freedoms in Sudan, it also offers more opportunities for Sudan’s integration into the global economy.
In the 1990s, Washington imposed sanctions on Sudan and placed the sub-Saharan country on the terror list. After two decades, things have begun to change, with Washington lifting economic sanctions in 2017 and removing Sudan from the terror list in 2020, but the expected improvement has yet to materialize. Given the context, it is not surprising that even in the prime 1970s and 1980s before the tension, Sudan did not become an economic partner of the United States, even though the country was incredibly well placed to be the United States’ best friend in the heart of Africa.
It should be noted that the first time Khartoum broke diplomatic relations with Washington was in 1967, which was done by voting in a democratic parliament and with the support of the fathers of Sudanese independence. Right, center and left took part in the decision.
Granted, Sudan was not the only country to cut ties with the United States because of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but Sudan made the same difficult decision to cut ties with Britain because of another similar African problem and affirms the presence of a rigid and “no compromise mentality” in Sudanese politics which was not created by the Islamist regime of June 1989.
Some believe that the real change after the December 2018 revolution in Sudan is the growing awareness of democracy and social freedoms, especially among young Sudanese. It is true that it was a great success, but not a new one. Similar changes have taken place in previous generations and Sudanese parties have failed to translate those historical achievements into democratic practice and social change. Sudan has gone through three democratic periods and witnessed two public revolutions in October 1964 and April 1985. In all previous eras, Sudan has not changed internally or in its external relations.
Here is the deal, there is a change that breaks this vicious cycle and paves the way for a new political mentality to replace the rigid, Sudan needs a modernized political mentality that can strengthen the democratic transformation in Sudan and bring more stability to the new politics of the economic market.
This change is normalization with Israel, or rather ongoing and serious Sudanese-Israeli talks leading to normalization that can positively contribute to the democratic transition, better relations with the United States, and the integration of Sudan into the global economy. Halting the normalization process was an unfortunate and unfavorable decision that could amplify extremism, as extremists always react to any kind of US intervention: “They don’t even want us as friends”!
Will normalization with Israel bring the expected change in one step?
No, but it will remove the biggest obstacle in the way of real change. What will happen can be summed up in the slogan “Sudan first” raised by the proponents of normalization with Israel, which means that Sudan’s interests are more important than historical issues and ideological constants.
Sudan Response to Biden’s Decision and the Way Forward.
During his participation in the UNGA in September 2022 in New York, General Burhan confirmed his willingness to visit Tel Aviv if invited. An informed source previously told the writer that Burhan’s advisers told him to keep the door open and wait for Washington to reconsider its policy and not respond to the US negatively, “they will find out the decision was wrong and the US administration missed the opportunity,” the source said.
Sudan’s real problem was not with the United States or the Western world, it was and still is an internal problem. The rigid mentality was again very apparent when normalization talks within the ruling FFC alliance began in 2020, with the process opposed by activists who received support from Western countries during their period of opposition to the former regime. These activists and politicians came to power with the blessing of the West, based on the misunderstanding that the rigid mentality in Sudanese politics was only made by radical Islamists, while it is the other way around, it is the mentality that has created radicals on both sides, right and left. The solution lies in normalization with Israel and the market economy because this is the direction that brings real change.
The first time US-Sudan relations were severed was in the 1960s, the national parties dominated parliament, the Umma party had 90 members, the unionists had 60 members, and the Islamists had only three members and they had no influence on the decision-making process. The communists had 9 members but they controlled the trade unions and labor syndicates. The tendency to sacrifice Sudanese economic interests and relations was strongly linked to the political mentality, change had to start in this area not somewhere else.
In fact, this tension in Sudan’s foreign relations is not only with the United States, as there are no stable relations for Sudan with Western countries in general. There is an urgent need to analyze this matter aside from the answers prepared in advance because those who give these answers are the same groups and individuals who make benefit from the tension between Washington and Khartoum, and therefore they prefer to mislead US political community and the administration and to reduce all the causes to a specific party rather than changing the political mentality including their portion in maintaining the rigidity. Sudan was ruled by all parties right, left, and center, and is now stuck in this situation; near to America and still far away, there are reasons to improve relations with the United States and to enter into an economic partnership and again nothing happens. This situation needs a real explanation of what is happening in Sudan’s foreign relations in general and in relations with the United States in particular.
The main obstacle hampering Sudan’s relations with the United States and the Western world, in general, is the strong tendency of Sudanese political elites to maintain and enforce ethical principles and positions at the expense of national interests and economic cooperation with the West.
From the US side, the level of understanding of the real problem in Sudan is always less than needed. The US administration needs to revisit its policy on Sudan.
The most important issues in Sudan for the US decision-makers should be the progress in the free economy policies and the real change in the Sudanese political mentality. Human rights issues are at the top of the list, but the required change has not happened, the reason for this is the rigidity of political elites, including human rights activists who are allied with Western organizations
