Despite receiving numerous offers of international mediation and regional initiatives to resolve the ongoing conflict between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces, which has persisted for over 100 days, none of these attempts have successfully halted the fighting. The most recent initiative, led by Kenya, aimed to deploy “peacekeeping” forces from East Africa. However, Lieutenant General Yasser Al-Atta, the Assistant Commander-in-Chief of the Sudanese Army, vehemently rejected this proposal. In a video clip, he asserted that none of these forces would return to their home countries alive and emphasized that the army would perceive any foreign forces as hostile. The Sudanese army’s rejection of the “peacekeeping” forces and objection to the Kenyan mediation can be attributed to several factors. Primarily, the army is determined to resolve the conflict in its favor through military means, disregarding alternative approaches. Additionally, the army perceives the presence of these forces as a violation of Sudan’s sovereignty, while also accusing Kenya of aligning with the Rapid Support Forces. Furthermore, the army refuses to participate in the quartet mechanism established by the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD).
The Sudanese army’s refusal to accept the Kenyan mediation and the IJAD initiative, which involves Kenya as a participant, for the deployment of peacekeeping troops in Sudan may be attributed to several key factors:
1- The army’s endeavor to achieve a favorable resolution of the conflict: Sudan appears to be at a crossroads, with one path involving the Rapid Support Forces and the other involving the Sudanese army. The army firmly opposes any proposal to terminate the war without attaining significant advancements on the battlefield. This stance is particularly reinforced by the fact that over 100 days have elapsed since the commencement of the conflict in Sudan, yet a conclusive triumph remains elusive.
The rapid support’s stance on the matter was conveyed by Youssef Ezzat, the political advisor to Dagalo, during his discussions in Lomé, the capital of Togo in West Africa. In his statements to the French Press Agency, Ezzat emphasized his willingness to engage in various meetings aimed at halting the conflict in Darfur and Sudan. He further emphasized that the present moment calls for the realization of peace in Sudan.
2- The actions taken by the Kenyan government in relation to the Sudanese conflict have exhibited a certain level of oversight over Sudan. These actions have been undertaken without the endorsement of any regional or international entity, and without engaging in any consultative dialogues with Sudan. Instead, crisis-oriented gatherings have been organized, involving both Sudanese and foreign dignitaries. According to a statement issued by the Transitional Sovereignty Council, under the leadership of Al-Burhan, the Commander-in-Chief of the Sudanese Army, the Kenyan government’s stance, as articulated by its president and foreign minister, during the IGAD summit in Djibouti on June 12, was deemed as a form of interference in Sudan’s internal affairs. This interference has the potential to undermine Sudan’s sovereignty.
The Sudanese army has also expressed its disdain with the outcomes and findings of the IGAD Summit held in Addis Ababa on July 10. The summit presented a proposal suggesting the deployment of peacekeeping forces in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The army’s refusal is based on the principles and traditions of IGAD, as well as the concept of collective action among member nations. It recognizes that it lacks the authority to enforce a decision that is not supported by all eight governments involved, particularly when it concerns an internal matter of Sudan. IGAD is an organization that effectively articulates the collective intentions of the participating governments and upholds the sovereignty of its member states. Consequently, the East African forces (ISAF) are strictly prohibited from entering without the explicit authorization from the Government of Sudan.
3- IGAD plays a mediating role in resolving conflicts, such as the one between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces. However, six of the member countries are currently grappling with internal conflicts, which significantly diminishes their prospects of achieving a peaceful settlement. This internal instability further complicates the Sudanese crisis and hampers efforts to find a viable solution. Additionally, the Ijad initiative lacks the necessary political leverage to effectively address the situation. It is crucial to recognize the interconnectedness of regional countries’ interests, as they strive to establish temporary peace and prevent the spillage of the Sudanese conflict across their borders.
However, the Sudanese army’s stance of refusal towards the IGAD initiative, as well as other regional and international initiatives, intensifies the strain on its military units in the ongoing conflict with the Rapid Support Forces. This is due to the perception that none of these diplomatic endeavors have yielded any tangible advancements on the actual battlefield. Thus, the path towards a resolution, or even a mere breakthrough in the crisis, remains elusive.
4- Kenya’s appointment as the chair of the Quartet committee, alongside South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia, was announced during the IGAD summit held in Djibouti on Monday, June 12. However, the Sudanese army has vehemently opposed Kenya’s presidency, citing its lack of neutrality in the ongoing crisis that has plagued the country since mid-April. Furthermore, the Sudanese government has criticized the Kenyan government for simplifying the conflict in Sudan as a mere power struggle between two military leaders. The Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a statement dated June 19, condemned this description as it undermines the distinction between the armed forces and the rebel factions opposing them.
According to the statement, the Sudanese objection to Kenya’s presidency of the IGAD Quartet Committee, which focuses on resolving the Sudan crisis, is based on several “procedural and objective” grounds. The primary reasons include the fact that Kenya’s presidency of the committee was not deliberated upon during the IGAD summit in Djibouti, despite Sudan’s opposition. Furthermore, during the emergency summit of the mechanism on April 17, it was determined that a committee of chairs would be established, with President Salva Kiir Mayardit of South Sudan being selected. This decision remains valid even after the committee was expanded to include the Prime Minister of Ethiopia.
5- Kenyan leadership is being criticized by Sudanese army leaders for displaying bias in their approach towards the Sudanese crisis, specifically by aligning themselves with the Rapid Support Forces. This accusation stems from the visit of Muhammad Hamdan Dagalo, the commander of the Rapid Support Forces, to Nairobi in January, where it is alleged that a connection between him and the Kenyan President, William Ruto, was established. During this visit, Kenya publicly expressed its support for the framework agreement signed between the military and civilian components in Sudan. The deployment of East African peacekeepers, including those from Kenya, can be seen as a manifestation of this alleged partiality.
According to several observers, the Sudanese army has made allegations against the Kenyan president, who previously served as the head of intelligence in his country. These accusations claim that he acted as a mediator for a US company involved in gold extraction and that he entered Sudanese territory for research and exploration purposes in February 2022, without obtaining permission from the official authorities. It is possible that the Sudanese army’s rejection of the Kenyan presidency of the IGAD Quartet played a role in the failure of the IGAD summit, which took place in Addis Ababa on July 10. Despite being present in Addis Ababa, the delegation of the Sudanese Armed Forces refused to participate in the summit’s proceedings, citing their insistence on William Ruto, the Kenyan president, stepping down from his position as the committee’s chair. The apology of the President of Djibouti, Omar Guelleh, and the President of South Sudan, for participating in the summit, as well as the Eritrean President’s description of this summit as a “political bazaar”; in the failure of this summit.
The High Cost
The Sudanese army’s refusal to accept peacekeeping forces from East Africa can be interpreted as a strategic move to resolve the ongoing conflict in its favor. This decision is further fueled by the strained relations between the Sudanese army and the Kenyan government, with the army accusing Kenya of aligning with the Rapid Support Forces. Moreover, it is crucial to note that deploying peacekeeping forces to Sudan without the explicit consent of the Sudanese army is unfeasible. The army has explicitly declared that any such forces would be perceived as hostile and their entry into Sudan would be seen as a form of occupation.
The Sudanese army justifies its opposition to this by arguing that, due to the current global circumstances, particularly the aftermath of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, no entity can secure a mandate from the UN Security Council or the African Peace and Security Council to deploy such forces, primarily due to the exorbitant expenses associated with such a deployment.