Egypt could help end Sudan conflict

Egypt recently took the initiative to host a summit in order to address the civil war in Sudan. The summit brought together leaders from several countries, including the Central African Republic, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya, and South Sudan.

However, notably absent from the summit were representatives from the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). At the Cairo summit, the Egyptian leadership wanted to draw a framework for any potential peace agreement and to remind all parties to facilitate the humanitarian corridors for civilians for aid delivery.

Egypt possesses historical and political influence in the MENA region, enabling it to potentially bring about an end to the conflict. By engaging directly with the key stakeholders in Sudan as well as their regional supporters, Egypt can initiate negotiations for sustainable political reforms by creating the environment where both sides and their supporters agree to sit together and try to reach sustainable peace.

The conflict has the potential to be long-lasting due to the steadfastness of both parties in their positions. General Mohamed Hemeti declared that he is present on the field and would not cease fighting until he achieved the desired goal, overthrow the government and seize power. Similarly, General Abdel Fattah Al-Barhan announced that he was defending the Sudanese state's sovereignty.

Numerous efforts to bring about peace in Sudan have proven unsuccessful so far due to disagreements involving the mediators and the parties involved in the conflict. A notable instance occurred when Khartoum raised objections to the peace initiative presented by Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and rejected Kenya’s chairmanship of the conflict resolution committee, claiming that the Kenyan president favors the RSF. Furthermore, both parties opposed a demand from Ethiopia to impose a no-fly zone in Sudan. Additionally, Sudan vehemently rejected a proposal to deploy East African forces, even going so far as to threaten the suspension of its membership in the East African bloc of IGAD.

The Sudanese leadership strongly believes that the deployment of foreign troops would only prolong the conflict by potentially involving external actors. They also harbor concerns that Ethiopia and Kenya may stand to benefit from Sudan's vulnerability and its inability to unite its own factions, thereby gaining regional power.

This objection to various proposals from neighboring countries indicates that the solution in Sudan can’t be found through traditional ways. The warring parties have to agree on one regional mediator—a country or a regional organization with good relations with both SAF and RSF—to end the conflict.

The Cairo summit stressed that the Sudan conflict would only be resolved in Sudan, closing the door to any external interference in Sudan. An announcement is welcomed in Khartoum, but it still could not end the conflict or at least bring both warring parties to the negotiation table. 

Egypt and Sudan have long been connected by historical, social, and political ties, as well as a shared destiny as one nation. This led the Egyptian Parliament in October 1951 to amend King Farouk's title to the King of Egypt and Sudan.

Egypt fears that the outbreak of conflict in Sudan could lead to the influx of mercenaries and armed militants through the country's southern borders. Intelligence reports suggest that Hemeti and his forces receive military support from several Arab and foreign countries.

Reports have also revealed a relationship between the Wagner Group, a Russian military contractor, and the Rapid Support Forces. 

The Wall Street Journal reported that General Khalifa Haftar in Libya is supplying weapons to Hemeti.

This unstable security situation in Sudan, coupled with the availability of arms and equipment from various regional and international parties, is a cause for concern for the Egyptian administration.

Egypt maintains strong alliances and close ties with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Libya, making it an important regional player. Furthermore, Egypt has established a stable relationship with Russia. These connections enable Egypt to communicate effectively with its regional allies, who possess significant influence and leverage over the RSF, thereby increasing the chances of initiating negotiations.

Egypt enjoys a distinct bond with the Sudanese army, characterized by shared experiences and military strategies. By leveraging these relationships, Cairo has the potential to resolve the conflict by convening both opposing factions in Cairo and creating regional support to ensure a lasting peace.

The Cairo initiative received a positive response on social media from both conflicting parties. Additionally, all seven neighboring nations expressed their support for the initiative, which is considered as a significant accomplishment for the leadership in Egypt. With its strong political influence and regional power status, Cairo has the opportunity to leverage its relationships to advance towards a durable and extended ceasefire. The ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive plan for political reform and ensure transparent elections. Consequently, it is crucial for Egypt to capitalize on the achievements of the Cairo summit and take further steps to promote stability in the region, which is of great importance to the country. 

 

US troops to stay in Afghanistan perpetually

I wrote a blog as back as in August 2012 posing a question; will the US pull its troops out of Afghanistan after 2014? While the overwhelming perception was it will pull the troops out, my conclusion was contrary. This seems true as the US troops are still there, with 2015 approaching an end.

Even at that time I had stated very clearly that the US attack was not to liberate Afghanistan from the control of USSR or Taliban but to occupy it for economical and political reasons. Neither presence of Taliban in Afghanistan not its involvement in attack on the world trade center was known to all.

Now, I can attribute occupation of Afghanistan to: 1) valuable metals in the country, 2) geopolitics and top of all 3) the huge quantity of poppy produced in the country. Being the super power the US keeps its troops in almost every region where it has some stake. Afghanistan has an important place in the US foreign policy due to common borders with Pakistan, Iran, China and proximity with many oil and gas rich Central Asian countries.

After the Islamic Revolution, Iran was projected as the biggest threat for the world, especially for Arab monarchs and also to the US and its 53^rd state, Israel. The US also had plans to send its troops to Iran to takeover country’s nuclear assets. It needs an outpost near Iran and Afghanistan is the ideal country.  The two countries share a long mountainous border, which is virtually impossible to monitor and defend.  

China is the second most powerful superpower, which is likely to surpass the gross domestic product of the US by 2020 and become world’s strongest economic superpower. The US already has outposts in Taiwan and South Korea and Afghanistan provides the third base in case any attack o China becomes the ultimate.

Taking Afghanistan as hostage was part of the US foreign policy and military strategy. The USSR believed that getting control over Afghanistan could give it a perfect foot hold in South Asia and the Middle East. The US also believes the Afghanistan is the gateway to central Asian countries.

Over the years China remained focused on its economy. When Russia tried to stretch its muscles sanctions were imposed on it. Now it is attacking ISIS bases in Syria and also trying to establish friendly relations with Pakistan and other strategically important countries

This does not bode well for the US, still adamant at maintaining its hegemony in South Asia and MENA. Therefore, probability of end to the US occupation of Afghanistan is hoping against the hopes.

 

US Proxy War in Syria

From the early days analysts have been saying that the United States is fighting a proxy war in Syria. It is not an attempt to dislodge Assad but to prove that the super power enjoys complete control in Middle East and North Africa (MENA). An article recently written by David Ignatius for The Washing Post gives more credence to this belief.

According to David the United States and its allies are moving in Syria toward a program of covert support for the rebels that look very much like what super power and its friends did in Afghanistan in the 1980s. In Syria, as in Afghanistan, CIA officers are operating at the borders, helping Sunni insurgents improve their command and control and engaging in other activities. Weapons are coming from third parties.

He even goes to the extent of saying that major financier for both insurgencies have been Saudi Arabia. In his view Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as Saudi ambassador to Washington in the 1980s worked to finance and support the CIA in Afghanistan and who now, as chief of Saudi intelligence, is encouraging operations in Syria.

As the proxy war in Syria is gaining momentum it is necessary to understand similarities/dissimilarities between Afghanistan and Syria. Afghan mujahedeen won their war and eventually ousted the Russian-backed government. CIA-backed victory opened the way for decades of chaos and jihadist extremism that are still menacing Afghanistan and its neighbors, especially Pakistan and Iran.

Therefore, before entering into any adventurism it is necessary to ask a question, will the intervention yield any result in case of Syria? The reply is evident if one keeps in mind the strategy of the covert war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The Saudis understandably would prefer that Sunnis who oppose autocratic rule should wage their fight far from the kingdom; Damascus is a far safer venue than Riyadh.

But there are hazards of fueling Sunni-Shiite dynamic in Syria, though rage against Shiites and their Iranian patrons has been a useful prop for the United States and Israel in mobilizing Sunni opposition against Assad, who as an Alawite is seen as part of the Shiite crescent.

But this is the most lethal and potentially ruinous sectarian battle, the kind that nearly destroyed Iraq and Lebanon and is now plunging Syria into the inferno. The Saudis want to fight Shiites but away from their Kingdom.

United States is also using the tribal card, which may be as crucial in Syria as it was in Iraq. The leaders of many Syrian tribes have been supported to wage war against Assad. It may be said that the engine of this insurgency in Syria is rural, conservative and Sunni.

David’s conclusion is thought provoking. He cautions the rebels fighting Assad deserve limited US support, just as the anti-Soviet mujahedeen did. The intervention will cause chaos and extremism that can take a generation to undo if the United States and its allies aren’t prudent.

Will US pull troops out of Afghanistan?

A question is often asked by the citizens of countries directly or indirectly affected by the Proxy War in Afghanistan; will United States pull out its troops occupying the country after 2014? 

The overwhelming perception is, it will not. To understand this it is necessary to explore reasons why the country is being occupied under the disguise of Nato and ISEAF.

One point is very clear that the objective was not to liberate Afghanistan from the control of USSR or Taliban but to occupy it for economical and political reasons. Presence of Al-Qaeda was not an excuse for attack. Iraq was also not attacked because of Al-Qaeda but oil. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had attack the world trade center.

One could find two possible reasons for occupying Afghanistan; valuable metals and geopolitics. Studies conducted by USSR showed that trillions of dollars worth precious and rare metals are present in Afghanistan.

Being the super power United States maintains its military dominance by brining countries all around the world under its hegemony to combat enemies. Afghanistan has an important place in the US foreign policy due to common borders with Pakistan, Iran, China and many oil and gas rich Central Asian countries.

After the Islamic Revolution Iran is being projected the biggest threat for the world, especially Arab monarchies and more recently for its nuclear program denouncing US hegemony. United States is planning for the ultimate day when troops will be deployed in Iran to takeover its nuclear assets. It needs an outpost near Iran and Afghanistan is the ideal country.  The two countries share a long mountainous border, which is virtually impossible fully monitor and defend.  

China is the second most powerful superpower, which is likely to surpass the gross domestic product of the United States by 2020 and become world’s strongest economic superpower.  United States already has outposts in Taiwan and South Korea, Afghanistan gives them a third root of attack should it be necessary.

Afghanistan was a hostage of the Cold War. The United States supported Pakistan and the USSR patronized Afghanistan and India against Pakistan. After Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 the Soviet leadership anticipated that in order to compensate its defeat in Iran the United States might seek to expand its influence in Afghanistan.

The USSR believed that getting control over Afghanistan could give it a perfect foot hold in South Asia and the Middle East. It would have access to a new ocean and proximity to the vast oil riches of the Middle East. There are no warm water ports in Afghanistan, but getting control over the Khyber Pass, an ancient trade route to China on the East and one step closer to Iran and Turkey on the West and Pakistan on the South, all with warm water ports.

With the disintegration of USSR, despite having tons of lethal arsenals and China focusing on its economy, the sole surviving super power seems too ambitious in establishing its hegemony in South Asia and MENA and Afghanistan appears to be the most ideal outpost. Therefore, probability of end to the US occupation of Afghanistan is hoping against the hopes. 

US – The biggest Arm Seller

Civilian Suffurings in Syria

I am one of the millions of people who fail to understand why conflicts are created and allowed to grow that often lead to anarchy, civil war and war among the countries.

One of the hypotheses is that when conflicts between rulers and being ruled grow the story starts with peaceful demonstration, when often get violent and soon it becomes ‘free for all’.

Lately, the uprising in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has become a thorn as super powers are taking active part in dethroning or consolidating the positions of rulers. Whatever is happening in Bahrain is being condoned but arms and funds are being supplied to rebel groups in Syria, the same was done in Libya in the recent past. Earlier efforts were made to develop rebel groups in Iran.

One of the conspiracy theories is proxy wars of the super powers is fought by smaller countries, the most notorious being Afghanistan. The United States prepared Taliban to defeat USSR and the war continued for nearly a decade because warlords started claim in booty.

According to one of the latest reports during 2012 the United States will make a record sale of armaments to the world but Saudi Arabia has emerged the biggest buyer. Is this the preamble of another attack on Iran? People still have in their memories that when Iraq attached Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia supported his war mania.

I have read somewhere a quote that over the next five years, seven Muslim countries may come under attack, the most probable top two being Pakistan and Iran. The saga is likely to start once withdrawal of Nato solider from Afghanistan starts in 2014. It is believed that military hardware will be kept in Afghanistan and can be used against these two countries.

Pakistan Must Opt for Oil for Food

While the United States continues to say that Iran is busy in production of nuclear warheads, it hasn’t come up with any credible proof. Many doubt it is a hoax call like presence of Osama in Afghanistan and Iraq busy in production of weapons of mass destruction.

The growing perception is the United States considers Iran a hurdle in creation of its hegemony in the region, the major supply of crude oil.

There is also growing feeling among Pakistanis that due to the US pressure the ruling junta the country had already stopped buying oil from Iran, construction of Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline being delayed and even supply of wheat in exchange for being put on hold. Even in the worst scenario ‘oil for food’ program was followed in Iraq.

The United States has exempted seven countries, 10 member countries of European Union and no mention has been made of China.

The US fully aware that Pakistan’s GDP growth is being pegged due to looming energy crisis and the country needs low cost energy products immediately. However, Pakistan is not being allowed crude oil, gas and electricity from Iran.

The time has come Pakistanis should assert themselves and convince the US that buying energy products from Iran bodes well for Pakistan. If India can pay Iran in Rupee, Pakistan should be allowed to buy energy products from Iran against supply of wheat.