Submitting to Dictations is Not an Option

Dr. Al-Khidr Haroun

Opinions have varied between supporters and opponents of the Sudanese government’s decision not to participate in the Geneva meetings, which have been ongoing for a week and address the humanitarian aspects resulting from the raging war in Sudan for over a year. What follows are the author’s perspectives on the matter.

First, no sane person who understands international relations would call for antagonising the United States of America. It remains the most powerful actor on the global stage for now despite the emergence of other powers that are likely to continue rising in the coming decades and years, leading to a multipolar world that provides smaller countries with more room to manoeuvre and diversify their paths, thus ensuring their survival. However, until then, America remains the strongest country economically and militarily and the most influential in global events. Therefore, creating problems and crises with it is a form of recklessness that will not end well.

These facts remain, and so do the risks and considerations associated with them, as noted by the Egyptian journalist Mohamed Hassanein Heikal when he advocated for the initiative of U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers during President Richard Nixon’s administration in 1970. That initiative, accepted by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, aimed to reduce tensions in the War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel. Heikal wrote a lengthy article that filled an entire page of Al-Ahram newspaper, titled:

“Head-butting with America is like swimming in rough seas.”

Thus, every country in the world’s diplomatic goal is the earnest pursuit of the opposite—establishing friendly relations with the U.S. to achieve numerous interests.

However, unconditional submission was not the solution, and only Japan and Germany chose it willingly after a fierce war. This submission was, in fact, a natural result of their crushing defeat in World War II, from which they benefited greatly through the savings from the prohibition on building armies. This led both countries to further industrialisation and rapid economic revival.

Unconditional submission, justified solely by avoiding the anger and wrath of the stronger power rather than by the strength of its argument and sound legal defences based on international laws and norms, is a form of self-humiliation and a betrayal of national pride. Moreover, it is not the only available option. Weak countries can use international laws to score points against major powers like the U.S., exposing its double standards and mobilising global public opinion for their causes—without resorting to insults or inflammatory chants, especially considering that America itself contributed to and encouraged the formulation of those laws governing international relations after that devastating war, which places it in a contradictory position with its actions.

This is evidenced by the fact that the leftist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in the 1990s won its complaint against the United States in the International Court of Justice when the U.S. planted mines at the entrances of its seaports.

Relying on the rules established by the international system since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which were later endorsed by the League of Nations and the United Nations, with the most important being the principle of the ‘sovereign nation-state,’ non-interference in its internal affairs, and the equality of states before international law, whether rich or poor, whether their population exceeds a billion or is just a few thousand, is still an argument against the bullying of the powerful and a shield from their aggression, at least on a moral level, diminishing their standing in front of humanity. This must be resorted to, rallying the weak around it and engaging the global conscience.

Even if this right—the right to appeal to international laws and complain to the institutions it established—were not available, that does not make submission to the stronger party simply because they are stronger a viable option. Otherwise, history would not have changed through resistance and steadfastness, and it would not have celebrated the heroism and revolutions of the weak who resisted domination with pride in themselves, refusing oppression, and who triumphed over their enemy, or whose visions triumphed by preserving human dignity in the face of tyranny. Epic stories would not have been written, and heroes would not have been immortalised in poetry, paintings, and statues.

Given the role of the U.S. since 2019, either complicit with or possibly orchestrating the arrangements of the UN envoy Volker, along with interventions by the European Union and the African Union, in collaboration with a selected, unelected Sudanese minority to determine the future of Sudan—not just for the transitional period as is claimed—the government’s participation in the Geneva talks, with such a questionable record, would be a humiliating submission that does not reflect human dignity in any way.

Especially with what the head of the government delegation recounted when the American envoy rejected the conditions set by the ‘de facto government in Sudan’ for participating in the negotiations and insisted on his own terms, either to be accepted in full or rejected entirely, in behaviour that treats Sudan like a colony that must listen and obey.

The media quoted Burhan as saying that the U.S. Secretary of State had invited him to come to Geneva in his personal capacity, not as the Chairman of the Transitional Sovereignty Council or the Commander of the Army! Suppose this is not humiliation and degradation of an entire people, being ignored in a matter that pertains solely to Sudan’s internal affairs, according to international law. What do we call it?

History does not forget the previous insistence on the Framework Agreement, of dubious origin, and the condition to accept it by signing it or face a destructive and bloody war. And now this ‘Geneva’ they say: either accept it or face disaster and African invasion, which will be named ‘UN.’ Can such an atmosphere allow Sudan to explain its case in Geneva, as some believe? If the conference attendees included countries that Sudan considers its friends and that act justly, it might be possible. Shouldn’t the government delegation in such a hostile atmosphere be wary of attending, fearing that their presence would be exploited to claim that the pre-prepared plan had received consensus, making it binding, just as was said about the Framework Agreement simply because the military had signed it in principle? That it had become binding? No sensible person, aware of lurking dangers, would not take precautions in such circumstances.

Are we truly in the third millennium since the birth of Jesus Christ, enjoying freedom, independence, and human dignity? Would any free person who respects their humanity bow their head to survive like a plant?

Researcher Cameron Hudson at the Atlantic Council mentioned that Burhan had called the U.S. Secretary of State over a year ago, pleading for the implementation of the Jeddah Agreement to pressure the militia to vacate citizens’ homes in preparation for ending the war, but the Secretary did nothing, even though he could have by exerting pressure on America’s allies who support the rebellion. If he had acted then, many lives and properties could have been saved, and the way would have been paved for a peaceful solution that would end the war and restore peace.

Why is there a rush now, at the end of the current U.S. administration’s term? The Jeddah Agreement, which the U.S. helped broker in 2023, could have been implemented, for therein lies the solution if the goal is truly peace. Considering the envoy’s intransigent stance, how can the Geneva talks create opportunities for the government to clarify its position and score points against many conference attendees who share the same views, objectives, and biases against the government and the military?

All of this suggests they are not concerned with stopping the war. These manoeuvres hide behind the fear that stopping the war and resuming the push toward democracy will bring the Islamists back to power—a baseless claim that is used as a pretext to eliminate Sudan entirely, uprooting its existence from the earth and seizing its wealth. In a previous article, I drew a comparison between the determination of George W. Bush’s administration in the early 2000s, with its solid theoretical groundwork to end the civil war between North and South Sudan, and its commitment to negotiations that lasted nearly four years. The U.S. played a role in bringing the negotiating parties closer without dictating terms, leading to the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. But then, the U.S. turned its back on Sudan, leaving its developments to hostile circles and lobbyists, which ultimately led to the South’s secession. I compared this with the current administration’s handling of the current Janjaweed war against the Sudanese people, marked by hesitation and an overreliance on the fear of Islamists, while the dead, wounded, rape victims, and displaced are innocent, defenceless citizens who have been subjected to atrocities so horrific that they will stain the pages of history, rare in their savagery. Numerous opportunities to stop the influx of mercenaries and weapons through Chadian airports to the militia were squandered, and the envoy did not visit Sudan even once, leaving the task of stopping the war and alleviating suffering to bureaucrats who know little about Sudan. And now, rushed movements in the administration’s final months for a conference in Switzerland sidestep the Jeddah Agreement, which the U.S. was one of the sponsors of. All these measures do not reflect a seriousness in resolving the crisis but rather foreshadow its prolongation.

We had hoped from the bottom of our hearts that the expected meetings in Cairo between the U.S. and Sudanese governments to discuss the withdrawal of the militia from homes and civilian landmarks, paving the way for peace or negotiations to achieve it, and contributing to balanced and healthy relations between the two countries based on mutual respect and shared interests, would have taken place. Unfortunately, that did not happen. We still hope, however, for what the U.S. envoy mentioned in his August 20th tweet about a joint statement from the Geneva conference participants expressing their intention to reach out to a delegation from the Sudanese army, in whatever way possible, regarding humanitarian relief. We hope this will form an opportunity and create a window for communication between the U.S. and Sudanese governments, opening new horizons for peace.