The Government of Hope: What Are Its Major Strategic Tasks? (2-2)

Dr Dirdiri Mohamed Ahmed

In the previous part of this article, we saw how the collapse of the rules-based international order has returned the world to square one, where the law of the jungle – might is right – once again prevails. The principle of “prohibiting aggression”, once the cornerstone of the old international system, has eroded. Russia invaded Ukraine, and yet the United States did not form a global coalition to liberate Ukraine, as it had done for Kuwait in 1990–1991, or during the Korean War (1950–1953) in response to the North Korean invasion. Instead, the US now appears ready to enter negotiations with Russia, effectively conceding that nothing will prevent Russia from formally annexing the territory it seized by force.
Donald Trump himself has expressed ambitions of annexing Greenland to the United States – if not through negotiation with Denmark, then by force. He has even claimed that the US could seize Gaza and displace its population, turning it into a resort. If this is what Russia has done, and what the US contemplates, then China is not far behind. While China has said little about Taiwan, Russia’s actions delight and inspire it, and Trump’s talk of Greenland surely pleases it as well. This, then, is the actual stance of the world’s three major powers on the principle of “prohibiting aggression”.
This takes us back to the international order prior to the Second World War. In 1936, Hitler entered the demilitarised Rhineland, violating the Treaty of Versailles, while Britain and France – its guarantors – remained silent. In 1938, he annexed Austria without international objection. The following year, he occupied Czechoslovakia. Had he not “gone a step too far” by invading Poland in 1939 – which finally stirred France’s fear of being next – all his previous gains might have been quietly accepted. The war may never have started. Elsewhere, similar events occurred: Japan invaded Manchuria, and then China took Shanghai and Nanjing (site of the infamous massacre). Italy annexed Ethiopia. There are videos on YouTube showing Haile Selassie fleeing in a small aircraft while German warplanes bomb Addis Ababa. Mussolini also seized Albania. The Soviet Union, too, swallowed the Baltic states.
In such circumstances, international law no longer guarantees the rights of weak or fragile states. Nor can they expect protection from the major powers. If a country as large and geopolitically significant as Ukraine is asked, “Where are your cards on the table that would make us rush to defend you?”, what hope is there for Sudan?
Weak states, militarily speaking, are easily subjected to foreign manipulation, invasion, division, coups, rebellions, and the rise of foreign-backed militias. Therefore, a strong, professional, and unified national army is an essential precondition for protecting national sovereignty, securing borders, and building lasting peace. Moreover, it is a gateway to technological development, infrastructure advancement, and logistical service provision across numerous sectors. That is why certain parties have always sought to weaken the army: limiting its resources, banning its investments, and placing it under the control of its own political adversaries – or even under foreign influence.
From this, it becomes clear that the second strategic mission of the Government of Hope – if not the first – is to strengthen and expand the army, both in development and in armament, whether the war ends soon or drags on.
This strengthening necessitates an increase in military spending. Advocating for such an increase is neither false nor reckless; rather, it aligns with global trends. Since 2020, due to escalating geopolitical tensions, there has been a marked return to hard power politics – realpolitik – where military capacity takes precedence. In 2020, global military spending stood at approximately $1.9 trillion. By 2023, it had risen to $2.4 trillion, and in 2024 it reached $2.7 trillion – a 9.4% annual increase, the largest since the Cold War (source: Financial Times). Military spending has grown by 37% between 2015 and 2024 (source: Defence Industry Europe).
This trend is not limited to Europe, the Middle East, and America. It has reached Sub-Saharan Africa as well. In 2023, the Democratic Republic of the Congo registered the highest national increase in military expenditure globally at 105%, due to internal conflict. In neighbouring South Sudan, military spending rose by 78% in the same year, in response to concerns over the war in Sudan and the anticipation of a new power struggle possibly involving foreign-backed actors (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook).
A key driver of this spending is the growing awareness among states of the critical importance of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into warfare, especially in drone technology and autonomous systems. Outdated or poorly funded militaries fall behind not only in tactics but also in structural capabilities. Experts argue that defence budgets must fund AI innovation and adaptive systems to maintain relevance. Simply upgrading legacy weapons is no longer sufficient.
This leads us to the third major strategic priority for the Government of Hope: embracing AI systems and applications.
AI is classified as a General-Purpose Technology (GPT) – a transformative innovation like electricity or the internet, capable of reshaping economies and societies across all sectors. The first such technology in human history was fire. AI, therefore, represents a holistic transformative revolution, akin to the Industrial Revolution in its ability to redefine the global landscape.
In the current conflict, we’ve already seen how AI has revolutionised warfare – from drone strikes to jamming, command, and surveillance systems. But its civilian impact is even greater.
Above all, AI is no longer just a tool – it is a pillar of national sovereignty. In a world rife with digital threats and vulnerabilities, the development of national AI systems provides digital immunity. Countries dependent on foreign platforms risk cyber breaches, as Sudan and Algeria experienced in 2019, when foreign powers, including the UAE, accessed sensitive security and demographic data, using it to influence internal events.
Reliance on foreign platforms also opens the door to digital extortion: services can be shut down, access denied, or made contingent on political or economic concessions. This leads to technological exclusion, where a state is barred from certain platforms or algorithms under the pretext of sanctions or security risks.
Sudan has previously been denied access to essential digital tools and platforms – including AI research utilities, API services, and payment systems – offered by Google AI, Microsoft Azure, and others. Today, Sudan has a narrow window of opportunity to develop its own AI capacity. But this window may close abruptly, for any reason or pretext.
Other nations have already faced this. Iran, for example, has been cut off from advanced cloud services, impeding its AI projects. It cannot access platforms such as AWS or Azure, nor use open-source AI tools that restrict use by certain countries. The US currently bans the export of advanced AI chips and technologies to China, especially those produced by NVIDIA and AMD. Companies such as Huawei and ZTE have been barred from accessing US services like Android. Post-invasion, Russia has faced severe tech sanctions, including bans from AI companies, GitHub Pro services, and major APIs.
Sudan must act immediately to seize its current access to AI development before restrictions emerge or intensify. Delay could mean exclusion from vital technologies, loss of digital autonomy, and vulnerability in both civil and military sectors.
In a nutshell, the three strategic pillars of the Government of Hope are:
Rebuilding a rules-based international stance amid global power politics;
Strengthening and modernising the national army as a prerequisite for sovereignty; and
Building a national AI capability to secure Sudan’s digital and strategic future.
Artificial intelligence (AI) can help, in Sudan’s current context, to increase public revenues by combating gold and mineral smuggling as well as tax evasion. This can be achieved by analysing satellite images using AI techniques to detect illegal activity in remote mining sites. These technologies can identify patterns of transportation and sales outside official channels, monitor extracted quantities against declared or authorised amounts by tracking the movement of trucks and equipment.
AI can also assist efforts to combat cross-border smuggling by analysing customs, aviation, and port data to detect suspicious or undeclared shipments. Furthermore, it can curb smuggling through smart facial and goods recognition systems at border crossings, and by predicting likely smuggling routes and methods based on past behaviours.
AI also aids in combating tax evasion by analysing financial and banking transaction data to uncover undeclared income, and by tracking business and individual activities through purchase and supply patterns to detect inconsistencies. It can also develop intelligent classification systems to assess the likelihood of tax evasion by individuals and entities, and guide inspections with greater precision. These are merely illustrative examples offered by an enthusiastic observer with no professional expertise in the field.
AI is also becoming indispensable for developing the key production and service sectors. In agriculture, it has brought about what is known as “smart farming,” supported by modern technologies. This growing trend relies on data, drones, and sensor devices to improve agricultural productivity sustainably and efficiently. This enhances food security, reduces waste, and enables more resilient agricultural production in the face of future challenges such as climate change and resource scarcity.
There is no path for Sudan to utilise the two hundred million arable acres that have lain fallow for centuries — as a neighbouring president once mockingly remarked — except through the introduction of AI technologies.
In healthcare, AI helps diagnose diseases by analysing X-rays and MRI scans to detect cancer and heart or brain conditions with high accuracy. It assists doctors in selecting the best treatment plans based on big data and medical histories. Smart medical chat applications provide initial consultations and early guidance to patients wherever they may be. Drones have even begun delivering medicines to rural areas in some African countries, such as Rwanda. Thus, AI is a practical solution to the healthcare crisis in our vast and resource-limited nation.
In Conclusion, some may find it surprising that a government built on the hope of civilian rule should be advised to strengthen the army. But such a view misses the point: building a professional army is part of building a civil state. Strengthening the army does not mean militarising the state. Rather, it means creating a professional force that operates under civilian leadership and believes in democracy.
To strengthen the army means unifying weapons under state control, preventing total collapse, deterring forces that threaten the transitional period, and closing security gaps exploited by militias. This war has taught us that the security of the state and society is the foundation of all development. There can be no reconstruction without security, no education without security, and no economy without security.
Indeed, we must recommend strengthening the army — even if it comes at the expense of civilian spending — because Sudan faces existential threats from a rebel militia and from foreign interference.
Some may ask: Why recommend AI development when the priority should be reconstruction? To that we say, first: AI is a developmental lever, not a luxury. Second, digital transformation is occurring simultaneously around the globe. Any country that misses this train will not catch it later and will become dependent on others. The global economy is rapidly turning into a knowledge-based economy. Those who do not join the AI race early will become followers, not actors. And by then, it will be no use to claim that our government at the time had only limited powers as a transitional administration.
Others may argue that the first priority of any transitional government should be to hold elections. While elections are indeed important — the final objective and ultimate goal — it would be a grave mistake to limit the role of the transitional government, in our current context and under the present international circumstances, to mere election preparation.
Elections without a strong state are a recipe for chaos. If the government rushes headlong into elections without addressing military division and weakness, administrative collapse, institutional vacuum, cyber infiltration, drone attacks, partial occupation of the country, and disputed sovereignty — even if only with a nominal government — then elections will either be held over the rubble of a state, or not held at all.
Thus, the mission of the transitional government today is not limited to elections. Its role is to accomplish a genuine transition. And a genuine transition is not simply a ballot box.
Finally, our Prime Minister named his cabinet “The Government of Hope.” The word “hope” appears twice in the Qur’an. In keeping with the Qur’an’s miraculous dualities, the first mention refers to blameworthy hope:
“Leave them to eat and enjoy themselves, and let [false] hope distract them” (Surah Al-Hijr).
The second mention refers to praiseworthy hope:
“But the enduring good deeds are better to your Lord for reward and better for [one’s] hope” (Surah Al-Kahf).
Such duality is a pattern that applies to all of life and never fails.
So this Government of Hope will continue to swing between praiseworthy and blameworthy hope — until it forges the tools that allow Sudan to repel aggression in a world order bereft of law, where the watchmen slumber and the foxes run amok.
This government will continue to waver between praiseworthy and blameworthy hope until it learns to see through the mirage and the flashing false lightning — and focuses instead on protecting the nation by strengthening its soldiers and embracing the tools of the digital revolution.
And I can see nothing in our government, or its Prime Minister, except that they are among those who hold praiseworthy hope.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=6766