IGAD: Drifting Off Course and Playing into Dubious Agendas

Sudanhorizon – Mariam Absher

Eritrea’s formal withdrawal from the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), only a year after resuming its membership following more than a decade of suspension, has reignited a new wave of criticism from Sudanese officials, experts, and observers. They argue that the organisation has drifted away from its founding charter and its core purpose—development and reconstruction—and has instead become a vehicle for advancing the political agendas and interests of foreign states and blocs seeking influence in an unstable yet resource-rich region.

A Reinforced Sudanese Position

IGAD’s continued deviation from its mandate strengthened Sudan’s decision to maintain its suspension of membership, a step taken officially in January last year. The suspension came in protest against what Khartoum described as IGAD’s “disregard” for Sudan’s earlier decision to freeze dealings with the organisation. The trigger was IGAD’s invitation of leaders from the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to an extraordinary summit in Kampala—without regional consensus. Sudan viewed the invitation as a breach of regional agreements and a violation of its sovereignty, declaring that any subsequent IGAD resolutions would not be binding.

Despite attempts in March this year to restore normal engagement, Sudan has continued to suspend its membership.

What Should Have Been Done

Sudan’s Ambassador to Djibouti and IGAD representative, Mohamed Saeed Hassan, told Al-Muhaqiq that IGAD—being the regional organisation most closely linked to Sudan geographically, economically, and in terms of security—should have shown greater understanding of Sudan’s situation. He said IGAD was expected to contribute positively by adopting independent, practical approaches aimed at influencing regional and international bodies such as the African Union and the United Nations, rather than echoing proposals from actors outside the region and the continent—actors pursuing suspicious agendas that destabilise the Horn of Africa.

The ambassador added that IGAD should, at the technical level, implement substantive and effective programmes and projects that address member states’ needs for comprehensive regional integration. He stressed that IGAD must adhere to its own principles and objectives with genuine independence of will, as that alone can restore its credibility and the confidence of its member states.

A Failure with Clear Causes

A senior Sudanese government official told Al-Muhaqiq that IGAD has repeatedly failed to adopt positions that demonstrate independence, credibility, or balance. Its “only real achievement,” he said, was its role in facilitating Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement—made possible at that time by strong domestic will within the Sudanese government, readiness from the SPLM under Dr John Garang, and supportive regional and international conditions.

He added that whenever international and regional actors were not keen on achieving peace or a settlement, IGAD played no meaningful role, instead yielding to regional and international pressures. This was evident during Ethiopia’s internal war with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front in 2021, where IGAD acted entirely as a bystander, respecting Ethiopia’s position and reflecting the lack of enthusiasm among external actors for a negotiated settlement. Their preference was to allow the Ethiopian government to pursue a military solution.

Likewise, during the Ethiopia–Eritrea war (1998–2000), IGAD played an insignificant role. The organisation has never granted itself the necessary autonomy or balance to distance itself from narrow regional and international agendas or to focus on its stated goals of development, regional integration, and stability.

Choosing the Role of Bystander

Since IGAD chose to involve itself in peace and conflict resolution—objectives that supersede its developmental goals—it was expected to work diligently and meaningfully in this domain. But when the RSF launched its war against the Sudanese state, IGAD adopted a position contradicting regional and international norms, which are grounded in state sovereignty and the recognition that governments in power hold legitimacy and must be given voice.

Instead, IGAD treated the Sudanese crisis as if two equal parties were in dispute, a stance that stripped the organisation of any possibility of playing a constructive role, including through its Secretariat. Worse still, IGAD allowed external actors with no connection to the region or the continent to influence its processes—specifically enabling the state backing the RSF to exert indirect influence and even attend some summits in undefined capacities.

According to the Sudanese official, this weakened IGAD’s effectiveness and deprived it of the ability to contribute to peace. And if IGAD has failed in its peace mission, he said, then it is even less capable of achieving its other objectives: development and regional integration.

Asmara’s Warning

A senior diplomatic source told Al-Muhaqiq that Eritrea had long warned IGAD’s leadership of its shortcomings—even suspending its membership for over ten years. When Eritrea resumed its activities, it soon realised that nothing had changed and therefore decided to withdraw completely.

The source described Eritrea’s decision as understandable, yet simultaneously signalling that IGAD is losing credibility and relevance. He warned that unless IGAD’s Secretariat and member states urgently address these failures, they risk driving another nail into the organisation’s coffin—especially as Sudan continues to suspend its membership.

He asked: If both Sudan and Eritrea are now non-functional within IGAD, what remains of the organisation? Sudan, a founding member with shared borders with four IGAD states, has historically played a major role in food security in the Horn of Africa and contributed substantially to regional relief efforts. Eritrea, meanwhile, occupies a strategically important position and exerts considerable influence.

A Shift in IGAD’s Role

Political analyst and media expert Dr Khalid Al-Tijani told Al-Muhaqiq that IGAD has evolved from a development-focused regional organisation into a political actor. It played this role in Sudan during the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and again in 2019 by contributing to the drafting of the Constitutional Declaration.

However, Dr Khalid argues that IGAD’s political role has been harmful, because as a regional organisation it should prioritise sustainable stability rather than acting as a vehicle for the agendas of influential member states.

He believes IGAD played a major role in paving the way for Sudan’s partition through the Declaration of Principles, which traded Sudan’s unity for secularism—ultimately leading to the inclusion of the self-determination clause and secession. Despite achieving “peace,” it failed to preserve unity or support a genuine democratic transition.

Similarly, he says, IGAD’s role during Sudan’s 2019 transition was negative, as it served as an arm of external actors rather than a platform serving Sudanese interests.

Continuing Negative Roles

After war broke out in Sudan, IGAD maintained this same negative trajectory, functioning as a voice for external agendas—even though, in principle, the African Union entrusts sub-regional organisations with resolving local crises. Yet IGAD proved wholly unfit for this role.

There were clear and troubling biases from influential IGAD members such as Ethiopia and Kenya in favour of the RSF. Leaders from these countries even declared that Sudan had “no legitimate government”—a blatant interference that helped create a political cover, prolonging the war.

Asmara’s Withdrawal: A Vote of No Confidence

Dr Khalid believes Eritrea’s withdrawal reflects complete disillusionment with IGAD. Its previous suspension and its departure after returning in 2023 confirm that the organisation no longer holds value, effectiveness, or a meaningful role. Sudan’s experiences—past and present—with IGAD prove it is “a failed organisation par excellence,” lacking independence and easily exploited by external actors.

Eritrea’s exit, he says, diminishes IGAD’s weight and transforms it into a club of states advancing foreign agendas rather than African interests.

The Latest Misstep

The most recent example of IGAD’s negative interference, according to Dr Khalid, was its invitation to a “Sudanese political dialogue” in Djibouti involving the so-called “Tasis” (Foundation) group—an invitation strongly rejected by Sudan’s national forces. Their refusal forced IGAD to postpone the meeting. This, he argues, demonstrates once again that IGAD remains captive to external directives and incapable of playing any positive role in Sudan.

A Different View

However, not everyone sees Eritrea’s withdrawal as significant. Former Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ambassador Al-Sadiq Al-Maqali told Al-Muhaqiq that Eritrea has never played a decisive role in regional affairs, and that its presence or absence will have little impact. He argues that Eritrea typically appears on the regional stage only during tensions with Ethiopia.

Al-Maqali believes that, despite Sudan’s suspension of its membership, IGAD remains an influential regional actor, working closely with the African Union through the regional “Quintet” and with the international Quartet, which relies particularly on IGAD to advance the objectives of its latest peace initiative.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=9553