War on Our Borders… What Have We Prepared?

Adel Al-Rifai Abu Al-Hassan
There are growing indications and statements suggesting the possibility of military confrontation between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In this context, an Ethiopian diplomat, identified as Ethiopia’s ambassador to Kenya, has been quoted as saying that any confrontation between the two countries could go beyond a limited conflict and escalate to an extent that would be impossible to predict. He even referred to the possibility of such a conflict resulting in the collapse of the Eritrean government.
The seriousness of this statement lies not only in its content, but also in the nature of the scenario it presents. When a diplomatic official speaks of a war whose scale and geographical reach may be impossible to predict, it becomes essential to examine every possible regional scenario, particularly as Sudan is geographically one of the countries closest to the theatre of these potential developments.
Sudan must therefore approach these indications with the mindset of a state that anticipates events and prepares before possibilities become realities. This is a scenario that must be studied and prepared for, as long as warning signs of war appear on the horizon.
This is where the concept of prudence becomes relevant. A state with strategic vision develops plans as soon as the first warning signs emerge and prepares for every scenario, from the least disruptive to the most severe. Sudan today is not starting from scratch: the current war has provided profound lessons about the nature of modern conflicts and how warfare has become intertwined with multiple factors extending far beyond conventional military confrontation.
The current war has demonstrated the importance of technology in managing conflict. Capabilities involving satellites, advanced reconnaissance and surveillance, drones, encrypted communications systems, jamming technologies and electronic warfare have all become prominent. Such technologies are now critical factors in detecting movements, monitoring the battlefield and managing military operations.
This raises an important strategic lesson: if a rebel militia has been able to acquire such advanced technological capabilities, what would the situation look like when the opposing party is a state possessing sophisticated military, security and technological institutions?
This requires Sudan to reassess the very concepts of security and defence in the modern era. Wars are no longer dependent solely on weapons and manpower; they increasingly depend on information, technology, surveillance, and analytical capabilities, as well as the ability to protect communications.
The greatest lesson from Sudan’s current experience is that national security depends upon advance preparation, sound assessment, and the ability to understand the political, security, military and economic landscape and theatre at both regional and wider levels.
The current war has also demonstrated the importance of having both primary and contingency plans, because modern conflicts can continue for prolonged periods and involve overlapping domestic, regional and international factors.
Any potential developments in eastern Sudan or the wider region must therefore form part of a comprehensive strategic assessment encompassing all issues relating to national security. This includes border and historical questions, among them the Al-Fashaga issue, which remains an important factor in the region’s strategic calculations.
What Have We Prepared?
The question that must be put to the Sudanese government today is:
Given these indications and possibilities, what have we prepared? And are there clear plans for dealing with the various scenarios?
Is there a comprehensive mobilisation plan beginning with the border areas and their local populations, followed by neighbouring areas, and then expanding according to developments on the ground and the scale of the threat?
Have the human, logistical and financial requirements for each stage been identified?
Has the state taken into account the possibility of either a short-lived crisis or a prolonged confrontation that could continue for months or even years?
Strategic thinking requires plans to be developed based on the worst plausible scenarios, because a successful state prepares for the most difficult circumstances so that it is fully capable of dealing with those that prove less severe.
Such planning must also incorporate the humanitarian dimension. Any major upheaval in a neighbouring country could generate large waves of displacement, placing considerable pressure on services and resources, particularly as Sudan is already experiencing a war that has imposed enormous humanitarian, economic and security burdens.
Advance arrangements must therefore include identifying and preparing reception and accommodation areas, organising entry and registration procedures, providing essential services, and establishing early coordination with the relevant international and regional organisations.
Managing any influx of displaced people must also be properly organised in a manner that fulfils humanitarian responsibilities while simultaneously safeguarding state security and the stability of host communities.
Preparation Begins Now
The principle of crisis management is clear: when the warning signs of war appear on the horizon, the state acts early.
It develops its plans, determines its priorities and builds its preparedness around the full range of possible scenarios. It then monitors political, military and economic developments and continually reviews its plans as events unfold.
The prospect of escalation may recede. The crisis may remain limited. Or it may develop along a far more complicated trajectory. But a state that prepares early is better equipped to protect its security and interests.
We want to be reassured that the state is looking towards the future with strategic foresight; that the possibilities have been studied, that plans are in place, and that Sudan is prepared for whatever developments may arise.
As the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham), peace be upon him, said:
“Yes, but so that my heart may be reassured.” (Qur’an 2:260)
Prudence and caution are principles of sound statecraft, and preparedness is a national responsibility.
In the face of these indications and challenges, it is therefore entirely natural that we should ask a legitimate question:
What have we prepared?

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=16950