Between Al-Atta’s Speech and the Geneva Conference: Is There a Comparison?

By: Alobeid Murawih

As is his habit every time, General Yasser Al-Atta, Assistant to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, makes statements that pique our curiosity—we journalists and writers—and then goes back to overseeing military operations, leaving behind not just the echoes of his speeches but also the dust of the battles that analysts and commentators stir up as they try to interpret or respond to his words!!

However, the reactions this time were more widespread, drawing attention from many inside and outside Sudan. Television channels and news sites rushed to find explanations, perhaps because they rightly saw something different, if not new, in the timing, context, and medium.
The subject of Al-Atta’s speech that we are commenting on here was his statements to Sudan Television. Since it was not broadcast live and came through the state’s official television, there is no doubt that its messages were intentional, regardless of how Al-Atta expressed those messages and how the recipients understood them.

For instance, his mention that General Al-Burhan informed him of his desire to step down made some analysts and foreign media think that a change at the leadership level of the army and the state might happen soon!!

Also confusing some analysts was Al-Atta’s talk about Sudan nearing the completion of joining a new international axis and that the leadership of the armed forces and the state had made a decisive move in this direction. Many understood this to mean that Sudanese leadership would join, or had already joined, the Russian-Chinese axis, which opposes the American-Western axis.

However, the truth that no analyst of what the Assistant to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces said to Sudan Television should ignore is that Sudan has always been a pivot of competition and conflict between international poles. For more than three decades, it has been a theatre of competition between China on one side and the United States on the other. This is mainly due to its geopolitical location and immense, diverse resources, among other secondary reasons. This competition intensified when Russia entered the scene, aligning more closely with China against a Western alliance led by the United States, Britain, and Norway. Due to the economic sanctions and Western diplomatic boycott that the Bashir regime suffered for more than a quarter-century, the government turned eastward, building solid relations with China and establishing similar ties with Russia.

After the fall of the National Salvation regime, with clear Western support, many thought that the main direction of the new transitional government, both military and civilian, would be westward and that the isolation and economic strangulation that the former regime suffered would end with its fall, bringing prosperity. But nothing of the sort happened. Instead, the United States continued to impose one condition after another for normalising relations between Washington and Khartoum, such as recognising Israel and normalising relations with it in exchange for removing Sudan from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism and paying massive financial compensations from an empty treasury for a fabricated case.

The military leadership that overthrew Bashir or those who overthrew the coup leaders thought they would be appreciated and revered by the United States and its European allies. But after four years of transition, they realised the matter was entirely different and that the whole process was staged, with each phase having its requirements, ultimately aimed at dismantling and restructuring them, making them mere security guards for a select group of unelected civilians tasked with implementing a specific plan and program, which is not detailed here!!
Therefore, it was natural for the Sudanese army to feel betrayed and bitter about the West’s stance, particularly the United States. This feeling of bitterness and betrayal increased after the recent war, where the West seemed to equate the army with the rebel forces, knowing that these forces were more like a militia than a regular force.

Al-Atta’s speech came in this context and against this backdrop, and it fundamentally bore nothing new. The Sudanese army has no choice but to seek strong allies against those supporting the rebel Rapid Support Forces. In this case, the option to lean towards Russia and China internationally is inevitable, but it does not necessarily mean severing ties with the West. The military leadership in Sudan still keeps a door ajar, hoping to gain American approval someday or at least not antagonise them at present.

It is also crucial to say that Russia, in particular, prefers to enter the Sudanese crisis politically, leveraging its advanced relations with the Sudanese army, previous relations with the Rapid Support Forces rebels, and excellent relations with the rebels’ regional supporters. This was strongly hinted at in the press statement on Wednesday after the meeting between Russian President’s Middle East envoy Mikhail Bogdanov and the Sudanese ambassador in Moscow.

Regionally, Sudan’s authorities need to strengthen ties with Tehran and Ankara, in addition to the historical relations with Cairo, without losing Saudi Arabia, which, according to most estimates, accepted transferring the file to Geneva due to its preoccupation with other more pressing issues in the region, many of which are tied to the results of the upcoming US elections in November.

In conclusion, based on available information, the responses Sudanese authorities received from the US administration regarding their reservations about the initial US invitation were reasonable enough to lean towards accepting the Geneva move. However, the question remains about the representation level in the negotiation delegation, both in its diversity (military and humanitarian) and protocol level. While it is unlikely that Al-Burhan himself will lead the negotiation delegation, it is unsurprising that his deputy will head the delegation to Geneva. However, this depends on the nature of communications since the invitation and the results of US Special Envoy Tom Periello’s recent shuttle diplomacy in the region’s capitals, possibly concluding with a brief visit to Port Sudan.