By Sue Mochorwa
The ongoing conflict in Sudan, particularly the violent power struggle between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, poses significant challenges not only for neighboring countries, including Kenya but world super powers, including Russia, Israel and the US. While the East African governments must navigate complex regional dynamics, I argue that it would be strategically beneficial for them to support Dagalo in this conflict. The West as is clear from their actions, have already picked a side, Hemedti’s, in the war, but East African countries position should rooted in considerations of regional stability, humanitarian concerns, and the promotion of a more democratic Sudan. Among East Africa countries, Kenya already took the first step early this year when President William Ruto met and hosted Hemedti to warm reception. In retaliation, Sudan Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Al-Sadiq announced that the country had recalled its ambassador, Kamal Gubara, to Kenya on in protest against the meeting.
Kenya seemingly, has already chosen sides in the conflict and it’s the right side to be since it’s the only way to be part efforts to find a peaceful settlement to the nearly two year old Sudan conflict. President William Ruto who chairs IGAD Quartet Heads of State and Government has in the past been quoted to say that Sudan Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces must have a ceasefire, to give way for talks and also agree to establish a humanitarian zone. This, he points out, will lead to the resumption of the final phase of the political process.
The Sudanese war has led to an appalling humanitarian crisis, with millions displaced and thousands killed. Hemedti’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), despite their controversial origins, have positioned themselves as defenders of civilian interests that stand for protecting civilians and providing humanitarian assistance. Given the historical context of both leaders, backing Hemedti may resonate more positively with the Sudanese populace, who have expressed a desire for a transition from a military to civilian rule.
Peace in Sudan is in the interest in maintaining stability in the East African region. The conflict threatens to destabilize neighboring countries, including Kenya, through an influx of refugees and potential spillover violence. Hemedti’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has shown willingness to engage in negotiations and may be more amenable to forming alliances with regional partners. A stable Sudan is crucial for enhancing security along Kenya’s borders and reducing the risks of cross-border crime and terrorism. Burhan’s faction is made of radical Islamists, who dominated Sudan during the time of Bashir, and they want to return to power. They have already orchestrated grave rights abuses throughout the country, and, in addition to harboring al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, cooperated with Iran to supply Hamas with weapons for attacks against Israel.
Sudan has long been an important trading partner in the East Africa region. The current conflict jeopardizes not only the Sudanese economy but also the economic ties that her neighbours, Kenya included has cultivated over the years. That’s why the meeting between President Ruto and Dagalo could lead to a quicker resolution to the conflict. This, in turn, would allow for the resumption of trade routes and economic activities that benefit both countries.
Within East Africa, Kenya has positioned itself as a leader, often taking the initiative in regional peacekeeping and diplomatic efforts. Mediation to end the conflict enhances Kenya’s role as a mediator and influencer in Sudanese affairs. By aligning with a leader who has expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue, Kenya has already strengthened its diplomatic ties and credibility within the region.
A choice between Dagalo and Burhan, it’s important to choose the lesser evil. Even though Dagalo’s RSF has its origins in the paramilitary context, he has signaled a desire for a transition to a more civilian-led government in Sudan. Supporting Dagalo could be interpreted as a commitment to encouraging this transition, aligning with Kenya’s own democratic values. By backing a leader who is open to reforms and civil governance, Kenya can reinforce its support for democratic processes in the region, sending a message that military rule is not the path forward. On the other hand, General Burhan is not a newcomer to Sudan’s political turmoil. He played a significant role in the military coup that ousted the transitional government in October 2021, which had sought to bring civilian rule after the ousting of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir in 2019.
Little known before 2019, General al-Burhan rose to power in the tumultuous aftermath of the military-led coup that ousted Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the authoritarian leader who was deposed after popular uprisings in 2019.
Then the inspector general of the armed forces, he had also served as a regional army commander in Darfur, when 300,000 people were killed and millions of others displaced in fighting from 2003.General al-Burhan had been closely aligned with Mr. al-Bashir. But when Mr. al-Bashir was ousted, his defense minister, Lt. Gen. Awad Mohamed Ahmed Ibn Auf, took over, pushing protesters to demand for his resignation. When General Ibn Auf stepped down, General al-Burhan replaced him, becoming the most powerful leader of the country in a tenuous transitional period. General al-Burhan then went on to progressively tighten his grip o
After civilians and the military signed a power-sharing agreement in 2019, General al-Burhan became the chairman of the Sovereignty Council, a body that would oversee the country’s transition to democratic rule. But as the date for the handover of power to civilians got closer in late 2021, General al-Burhan seemed reluctant to hand over power.
As tensions rose, Jeffrey Feltman, the U.S. envoy to the Horn of Africa at the time, arrived in Sudan to talk with both sides. Despite his differences with the civilian side, Mr. al-Burhan gave no indication that he wanted to seize power.
But on Oct. 25, just hours after the U.S. envoy left, General al-Burhan detained Abdalla Hamdok, the prime minister at the time, in his own house, blocked the internet and seized power, effectively derailing the country’s transition to democratic rule.
Two weeks later, he also appointed himself the head of a new ruling body that he promised would deliver Sudan’s first free election. But that did not assuage opposition groups and civilian protesters, who continued to pour into the streets every week to demand his resignation and the end to military rule.
In December 2022, the military, represented by General al-Burhan, and a coalition of civilian pro-democracy groups, signed a preliminary agreement brokered by members of the international community to end the political standoff. But that deal did not satisfy the demands of some civilians who continued to protest, or his biggest rival, Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan, the leader of the Rapid Support Forces, a powerful paramilitary group.
As a member of the African Union (AU) and the East African Community (EAC), Sudan’s neighbors have a responsibility to uphold the principles of peace and security in Africa. Supporting Burhan could be viewed as a betrayal of these ideals, particularly given the AU’s stance on promoting democratic governance and civilian rule.
East Africa states should be aware that their actions on the international stage will be scrutinized. The African continent has long been touted as capable of finding its own solutions to its problems. Kenya can play a crucial role in leading a regional response to the Sudan crisis without taking sides in the conflict. By harnessing the strengths of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the AU, Kenya can facilitate dialogue between the warring factions, helping to broker peace agreements that emphasize reconciliation rather than further militarization. This aligns with the principle of African solutions for African problems
Supporting Burhan sends a message that military coups are an acceptable means of achieving political power. This could set a dangerous precedent not only in Sudan but across Africa, where military interventions remain a significant concern. By choosing not to support a military leader, IGAD and East Africa can advocate for a return to civilian governance in Sudan, promoting democratic norms that align with the aspirations of the Sudanese people. This approach would not only be morally sound but could also inspire other nations grappling with similar issues.
While the situation in Sudan is fraught with complexities, supporting Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo offers Kenya a strategic pathway to promote stability, humanitarian aid, and the prospect of a more democratic governance in Sudan. By aligning with a leader who is open to dialogue and reform, East Africa countries can play a pivotal role in shaping a more peaceful and prosperous future for Sudan.
Sue Mochorwa is a key accounts executive at Scion Advisory Group.
Leave a Reply