Sudan’s Neighboring Nations
Recent discussions surrounding the arming of tribes in Sudan’s eastern region have gained momentum, prompting numerous inquiries regarding the emergence of former regime leaders in this area. This development raises questions about whether the region serves as a sanctuary for these leaders or could potentially evolve into a new battleground, possibly leading to civil unrest. Additionally, we must examine the implications of this situation on Sudan’s neighboring countries to the east.
The eastern Sudan region shares geographical borders with Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Egypt. Its strategic location, commanding a vantage point over the Red Sea, holds substantial importance. Notably, it serves as Sudan’s exclusive maritime access point via Port Sudan, which is the primary conduit for foreign trade, including oil. Furthermore, this region carries significant implications for neighboring nations such as South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Chad.
The Eastern region boasts a population of approximately 6 million people, with nearly half of them being members of the Bija tribes. These encompass the Hadandwa and Amarar tribes, as well as the Bani Amer and Rashaida tribes, all of which are Arab tribes spanning across the Sudan-Eritrea border. Additionally, the region is home to the Bishariya tribes, with a presence extending into both Sudan and Egypt, and the Afar and Bani Shanqul tribes, which have territories straddling the Sudan-Ethiopia border.
A common language, derived from “Kushitic,” is predominantly spoken among most of the tribes in eastern Sudan. However, it’s worth noting that the Bani Amer, who are considered newcomers to Sudan, communicate in “Tigrinya.”
An Inherited Crisis
The crisis in the East is an integral component of the challenges bequeathed by the Al-Bashir regime, encompassing economic, developmental, and social issues deeply entrenched within Sudanese society. Despite the region’s substantial contributions to port revenues and the export of natural resources, notably gold, it has grappled with enduringly high levels of poverty and unemployment. These predicaments stem from longstanding political, economic, and developmental neglect, prompting certain residents to advocate for secession from the central state, reminiscent of South Sudan’s separation from Sudan in July 2011.
The eastern Sudan region has been marred by conflict, pitting the Bani Amer and Al-Habbab tribes against the Bija and Hadandwa tribes. This discord primarily stems from historical disputes over governance rights and access to regional resources. Although an agreement was reached in Eritrea in 2006 with the aim of fostering development in the region, it ultimately failed to produce concrete results due to the policies of the Al-Bashir regime, effectively perpetuating the same crisis.
Following the downfall of Al-Bashir and his regime, tribal tensions have resurfaced over the past two years. Conflicts have arisen both between the Bani Amer and Hadandwa tribes and between the Bani Amer and the Nuba tribes.
This situation prompts concerns regarding the potential adverse consequences that may arise from arming the tribes in the eastern Sudan region, with repercussions extending beyond Sudan’s borders to the east.
Negative Consequences
The arming of tribes in eastern Sudan could lead to a range of significant adverse effects, including the potential for a regional civil conflict within the region itself. It may also exert influence on the ongoing conflict in Sudan, particularly the dynamics between the army and the Rapid Support Forces. Furthermore, there is a risk that eastern Sudan could transform into a regional hotspot of conflict, among other potential outcomes. The most noteworthy of these effects encompass:
- The Escalation of Tribal-Based Political and Societal Discord: The Al-Bashir regime’s intentional manipulation of tribes, with the objective of forming a tribal alliance loyal to him in eastern Sudan, has intensified societal rifts. This strategy has bolstered tribal identities at the detriment of a unified national identity, consequently establishing the tribe as a foundation for political and societal disputes. This phenomenon has significantly influenced the region’s conflict dynamics, impacting both its social and economic aspects.
This has become evident through recurring demands for self-governance and self-determination within the context of addressing developmental challenges and resource disputes among the region’s tribes. These conflicts extend beyond just the indigenous population of the region and involve newcomers from other parts of Sudan, including groups from the Masalit, Fur, Hausa tribes, as well as the Zaghawa.
Due to the marginalization experienced by the eastern Sudan region, certain tribal groups have resorted to armed actions against the central authority located in the capital, Khartoum. Notable instances include the Bija Congress Party and the Eastern Black Front.
- Escalation of Tribal Conflict Posing the Risk of Civil War: The appearance of former regime leaders in eastern Sudan serves the purpose of rallying the region’s tribes to participate in the ongoing Sudanese conflict, intending to broaden the conflict’s scope to the east through tribal and militia engagement. This situation has the potential to escalate into a civil war, particularly given the region’s diverse tribal composition and its historical record of intertribal tensions.
This potential scenario becomes apparent due to the precarious security situation prevailing in eastern Sudan, coupled with the substantial stockpiles of various weapons present in the region. These arms have streamed into the area from neighboring geographic and regional nations during the tribal conflict that erupted two years ago. Consequently, this arms influx has heightened the willingness of the rival tribes to participate in the ongoing conflict that commenced on April 15th between the army and the Rapid Support Forces.
- The eastern region of Sudan has become a crucible of polarization and a theater for political and military confrontations. Calls for haphazardly arming tribes or establishing armed militias in the east, ostensibly to bolster the army in its conflict against the support forces, expose Sudan to some of the gravest possibilities in its history of internal strife.
It’s crucial to recognize that these calls and their consequences will not contribute to the desired military resolution sought by the warring factions. On the contrary, they are poised to escalate into a large-scale civil war, particularly given the prevalence of tribal loyalties that permeate the region’s social fabric. The pro-army stance articulated by Mohammed Al-Amin Tark, the head of the Supreme Council of Bija Chiefs, is likely to galvanize other tribal forces, especially those with a history of conflicts with the Bija tribes like the Bani Amer and Rashaida, to align with the Rapid Support Forces due to shared interests.
Consequently, eastern Sudan may evolve into a platform for both political and military polarization, serving as a battleground for the conflicting factions within Sudan. This polarization will further intensify along the pre-existing fault lines between tribal groups, irrespective of whether they identify as indigenous to the region or are categorized as newcomers. An illustrative instance of this is the demonstration staged in Port Sudan on May 9th, where the army urged civilians to arm themselves in support of their ongoing battles.
- Escalating Security Challenges amid Porous Borders: The eruption of conflict between the army and the Rapid Support Forces has ushered in a new political climate and cast a shadow of uncertainty over the future of eastern Sudan. This uncertainty is compounded by the increasing threats to the unity of the country and the heightened risks it faces.
Eastern Sudan’s distinctiveness, stemming from its geopolitical importance, not only exposes it to the consequences of domestic developments in neighboring countries, notably Ethiopia and Eritrea, but also places it in the crosshairs of international power struggles unfolding along the Red Sea shores. When coupled with its expansive tribal geography and the prevailing uncertainties surrounding Sudan’s future, this volatile mix raises the specter of a conflict that could potentially spill over into the broader regional neighborhood.
It’s worth noting that certain elements of eastern Sudan have extensions into Eritrea and Ethiopia. This expansion and interconnectedness of tribes have turned eastern Sudan into a social hub for numerous opposition movements opposed to the ruling regimes in Ethiopia. Additionally, it has served as a focal point for Eritrean liberation movements in their conflicts against Ethiopia.
Moreover, the open borders and the continual acceptance of incoming individuals in eastern Sudan, combined with security breakdowns in some neighboring countries that facilitate access to weapons, have exacerbated the situation. This is particularly true in the context of external support, both moral and financial, directed at specific tribal factions, aiding them in procuring weapons. Consequently, this has prompted other tribal groups to arm themselves in defense of their very existence.
- Eastern Sudan’s Evolution into a Hotspot of Regional Conflict: While the crisis in the eastern Sudan region initially emerged as a local concern, it has become increasingly entangled with regional interventions from Sudan’s neighboring nations, particularly Eritrea and Ethiopia. Countries like Eritrea have effectively cultivated loyalty among specific border communities, enabling them to exploit the economic opportunities in eastern Sudan for their gain, often outside the bounds of the international trade system. Furthermore, Ethiopia has sought to leverage the security tensions in the region as an opportunity to extend its influence into certain border areas.
Moreover, international and regional power struggles and their quest for influence along the Red Sea coastline are intricately interwoven with the broader Sudanese crisis and, more specifically, the tribal dynamics and drivers of conflict in eastern Sudan. This phenomenon can be attributed to the ambitions of Russia, Turkey, and Iran, each endeavoring to secure a presence along the Red Sea by leveraging tribal conflicts to activate prior agreements made with the Al-Bashir regime. These agreements revolved around establishing military bases in Port Sudan or the port of Suakin.
Open Scenarios
In this context, it can be asserted that the absence of a peaceful resolution through negotiations between the conflicting parties may pave the way for a wide range of outcomes in the Sudanese conflict. Calls for war and ethnic divisions, or even the notion of partitioning Sudan into a “River State” and a “Sea State,” have the potential to reshuffle power dynamics and tribal affiliations in eastern Sudan.
Given the historical disputes that persist among social forces in the East, arming the tribes in the region presents two plausible scenarios: either a recurrence of the “Darfur” scenario or a replication of the “South’s secession” scenario. These circumstances place the future of Sudan as a unified nation in jeopardy.