Sudan under Trusteeship

Rashid Abdel Rahim
The most useful summary of Prime Minister Dr Kamil Idris’s address to the Security Council yesterday is that he effectively handed Sudan over to the international community.
The Prime Minister called for a ceasefire under international supervision, the withdrawal and assembly of rebel forces under international supervision, and the holding of elections under international supervision.
This means that Sudan’s future, from today onward, would be placed in the hands of the international community—a community that did not support Sudan in the past, did not stand by it then, and will not do so now or in the future.
The international community was behind the secession of the South. After making rosy promises, it failed to honour them: sanctions on Sudan were not lifted, and the promised compensation was never delivered. Today, we are returning to the same international community to repeat the very same experience.
The Prime Minister addressed a session composed of UN officials—the representatives of their countries at the Council.
He met with representatives of the Security Council and some international organisations who are of lesser stature than he is and who do not possess the authority to take major decisions.
Major decisions are taken by states in their capitals and then implemented by their representatives at the Council. The Prime Minister did not engage with the true sources of decision-making.
Moreover, the session requested by Sudan suffered from low attendance, as it took place during the New Year holiday, which diminished its vitality, visibility, and impact.
The step of ending the war and disarming the rebels was placed by Kamil Idris in the hands of officials. Yet even so, he did not name or identify those supplying the rebels with weapons and equipment, or supporting them in international forums. This omission enabled the representative of the supporting state to stand on equal footing with him and allowed that representative to deliver a rebuttal speech stronger than his own.
The American official who is, to some extent, supportive of Sudan, Cameron Hudson, issued a clearer, stronger statement in his demands. He described the crimes of the Rapid Support Forces as they deserve to be described, condemned the United Arab Emirates, and stated that condemning the warring parties without naming and holding accountable those who intervene in the war makes the international community a partner in prolonging it.
The Russian representative also delivered a clear and strong statement, calling for non-interference in the Sudanese people’s right to determine the future of their country.
Sudan’s address amounted to handing the country over to external actors and came across in a wretched manner that diminished the stature of the Prime Minister—and, by extension, the Sudanese state itself.
Even in appearance, the speech and overall posture fell short of what Sudan deserves.
A core member of the official delegation was not a state official but rather a friend, supporter, and benefactor of the Prime Minister. He appeared at the session wearing a white suit, and Sudanese protocol had no authority to direct him, as he is not a state employee. He made no effort to understand the dignified image required in such a setting; the attire he wore is suitable for private happy occasions, not for the most important international forum.
Sudan’s delegation was composed of the Prime Minister’s office and a personal friend, rather than representatives of the state. It would have been more appropriate for the delegation to include the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the General Intelligence Service, as these are the officials responsible for implementing and following up on the outcomes of such a visit, enabling the state to take the necessary decisions and actions.
The Prime Minister’s friend, Al-Hafyan, who attended the session, is among those who played a role in his appointment, alongside their third associate, the Minister of Animal Resources. They are the very individuals representing the state accused of aggression against Sudan, and they have maintained close and strong ties with it in the past and present—and undoubtedly will in the future. This is what led to the shaky stance at the Security Council session and what will lead to even more dangerous positions regarding Sudan’s future, as it has already weakened our stance in confronting that state.
The Prime Minister has long pursued this post whenever an opportunity arose in previous governments. He has now attained it, and enhancing his CV by becoming Prime Minister may suffice as a personal victory for him—but for our state, it is enough to signify weakness and fragility.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=9841