The Arab League’s Decision on Sudan: Behind the Scenes, the Significance of the Positions

Cairo – Sudanhorizon – Sabah Moussa
Amidst the escalating developments on the ground in Sudan and growing fears of a wider military escalation and its regional repercussions, the emergency meeting of the Arab League Council at the level of permanent representatives reflected the extent of concern over the continued external attacks on the country and their worsening humanitarian and security consequences. The meeting, convened at Khartoum’s request, placed the Sudanese crisis back at the forefront of Arab attention, amidst calls to halt the escalation, preserve Sudan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and create an environment conducive to a political process that would end the conflict and alleviate the suffering of civilians.

Emergency Meeting
The Council of the League of Arab States held an emergency meeting at the level of permanent representatives on Sunday and Monday, at the request of Sudan, to discuss the drone attacks launched from Ethiopian territory into Sudan and the latest developments. The meeting’s outcomes centered on a resolution that reaffirmed all previous Council resolutions concerning Sudan, strongly condemned the attacks targeting infrastructure and civilians in Sudan, which have resulted in loss of life and damage to private and public property, and requested the General Secretariat to take the necessary steps to refer the resolution to relevant states and organizations.

Recent Attacks
During the meeting, Sudan’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Arab League, Emad El-Din Adawi, reviewed the developments in the field and humanitarian situation in Sudan, particularly the recent attacks targeting Khartoum Airport and civilian and military installations. He emphasized that the recent escalation represents a pivotal stage in the conflict after a period of relative calm, relying on a unified Arab stance that condemns the attacks and supports the unity of Sudan and the political solution process. The meeting also discussed the repercussions of the worsening humanitarian crisis, with continued displacement and casualties.

Condemnation Stalled
According to media reports, the UAE objected to some of the wording in the Sudanese draft statement, particularly regarding direct accusations against Ethiopia or references to external support for the attacks on Sudan. Reports indicated that disagreements within the meeting led to the failure to pass the draft resolution condemning the attacks as presented by Khartoum. Further consultations were held among Arab delegations to reach a consensus. Some sources also reported heated discussions between the Sudanese and Emirati delegations, and unofficial reports even suggested the Emirati delegation withdrew from the session. Meanwhile, official Arab positions focused on supporting Sudan, calling for de-escalation, and preserving its territorial integrity, without directly accusing any country, in an attempt to maintain a diplomatic balance within the Council.

A Relatively Positive Stance
In the context of political analysis, observers believe that Sudan has the right to defend its sovereignty and condemn any external attacks against it. They also believe it has the right to request a meeting of permanent representatives to the Arab League to condemn this aggression. However, some pointed out to Sudanhorizon the importance of broader diplomatic efforts beforehand, including visits and contacts with Arab states sought clarification of the Sudanese position before its presentation within the Arab League. However, they consider this resolution a relatively positive step, although the real challenge lies beyond the resolution itself. They emphasize that a lasting solution to the Sudanese crisis requires a long-term political process leading to peace, state reconstruction, free and fair elections, the integration of armed groups into a unified national army, and brining to justice elements of the Rapid Support Forces and all human rights violations in the country.
The absence of similar stances from the African Union, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) regarding these developments in Sudan is noteworthy. Others believe that the Arab League remains the most prominent regional framework for addressing the Sudanese crisis, despite reservations about its decision-making mechanisms.

Lack of Condemnation
In contrast, informed sources told Sudanhorizon that the resolution did not explicitly mention Ethiopia or directly describe the attacks, which was interpreted as reflecting a lack of complete consensus among member states. These sources also indicated that the final wording did not explicitly affirm the unity and territorial integrity of Sudan, sparking debate about its political implications. They stated that the resolution failed to address the core issue for which the request was submitted—the attacks launched from Ethiopian territory against Sudan—emphasizing that this effectively meant a lack of condemnation of Ethiopia. They argued that this resulted in a lack of a unified stance regarding the developments in Sudan. The sources considered the wording of the resolution as a retreat from the emphasis placed on it in previous resolutions. They further noted that the resolution’s omission of any mention of Sudan’s unity and territorial integrity implied the possibility of a parallel government, a position held by all countries and organizations concerned with Sudan. They added that the resolution implicitly, rather than explicitly, condemned the Rapid Support Forces.

Member Positions
For his part, former Sudanese Foreign Minister, Ambassador Ali Youssef, considered the issuance of the resolution itself better than its absence. In an interview with Sudanhorizon , he explained that the Arab League, by its very nature, reflects the positions of its member states, and that its decisions are made by consensus, not majority vote. He added that this approach is not limited to the Sudanese issue alone, but extends to various Arab issues, where the League usually seeks to formulate positions that take all parties into account and attempt to reach common ground. He pointed out that the resolution, despite its importance, might be unsettling for the Sudanese public and does not fulfill the aspirations of the Sudanese leadership, as it did not include a direct reference to Ethiopia or any country supporting the militia, even though the Ethiopian attack is documented and real.

Dragging Sudan
Youssef added that it is clear there is an Arab trend towards de-escalation with Ethiopia, which was reflected in the lack of reference to it within the resolution, as a result of pressure exerted by the UAE and some countries that understand its position. At the same time, he stressed that he does not favor escalation with Ethiopia, considering that there is a plan aimed at dragging Sudan into a wider catastrophe, warning that Ethiopia’s direct entry into the Sudanese war may open the door to other regional interventions. He said that the resolution clearly reflected the nature of the scene within the Arab League, as well as the state of Arab division that exists towards a number of regional issues, and not only the Sudanese crisis.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=13775