An American diplomat informs Sudanese political forces serious developments on Sudan

Follow-up- Al-Zawiya Net- A meeting that took place between the former American diplomat Cameron Hudson and political forces, entitled “The Sudan War: The US Point of the United States” focused on analyzing the decline in American influence in Africa during the past decade, with a special focus on how Washington has decreased on the continent and the emergence of new regional players who created a vacuum that Russia and China are actively filling.

Hudson discussed how the Trump administration’s approach to Sudan changed with deliberate negligence compared to the previous administration of Lapiden, which was characterized by more effective participation, although it was just a few results. Where the current administration looks at Sudan as a “trading commodity” and gives priority to regional relations instead of direct intervention. Speakers traded the complexities of American policy in the region, including the challenges of addressing continuous conflicts in Sudan and the impact of recent sanctions, while emphasizing the need to manage relations with regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

American influence declined in Africa

Cameron dealt with the decline in American influence in Africa during the past 10-15 years, attributing this to the decrease in Washington’s focus on the continent and the emergence of new regional players such as Israel and the UAE. The decline in American participation in Africa has linked the Obama administration policies and its intervention in Libya, which led to unintended consequences and the decline of Washington’s approach to foreign policy. He pointed out that Biden sought to preserve democratic values ​​and human rights, but the gap between discourse and reality showed the incompatibility between his vision and the current American capabilities, which led to the Trump administration, which focused on narrow national interests.

Global power in Sudan turns

Cameron explained how global players such as Russia and China fill the void that the United States has left in weak countries such as Sudan, Mali and the Central African Republic, motivated by opportunities for influence and trade, not the political agenda.

He pointed out that the Trump administration does not give a great priority to Sudan in its foreign policy, and that he had not heard any senior US State Department, saying anything about the Sudanese affairs. And that the American administration sees a paper bargaining paper with its relations with countries of greater strategic importance, such as Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Turkey and Egypt. He stressed that the administration’s approach focuses on preventing the worst scenarios, such as the emergence of a failed state or the establishment of a naval base for Russia or Iran, rather than promoting democratic rule actively.

US policy is unclear towards Sudan

Cameron explained that the Trump administration is looking at Sudan as a “trading commodity” and has not followed a clear policy towards it, unlike the previous Biden administration. He pointed out that Sudan was not discussed during Trump’s recent visit to the Gulf region, and that the United States is ready to use Sudan as a bargaining card with regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He also indicated that the Trump administration is not currently dealing with any civil groups in Sudan, unlike the Biden administration, which previously supported the transitional government.

Qasim Al -Dhafir raised questions about the United States’ strategy towards Sudan and its relations with regional powers, while Dr. Youssef Ezz El -Din expressed his appreciation for Cameron’s continuous continuing on Sudan, while adding an explicit speech about the Americans ’ignorance of the volume of crimes committed by the militia against civilians.

Conflict in Sudan and the role of the Emirates

Dr. Youssef Ezz El -Din described the situation in Sudan after the Rapid Support Forces against the National Army rebelled on April 15, stressing that the widespread violations committed by the Rapid Support Forces against civilians from collective looting, rape and torture that make the equality of both parties wrong and insulting. He argued that stopping the Emirati support for the Rapid Support Forces is necessary and sufficient to end the war, because the militia cannot stay without external support. Cameron replied that the Rapid Support Forces can finance themselves from the gold trade, even if it is less, and may have received support from arms dealers if the UAE raises its hand.

And he stressed that the UAE propaganda targets the concerns of Western policy makers of Islamic terrorism instead of directing its speech to the Sudanese people. The two speakers agreed on the complexity of American policy in the region, and Cameron warned against exaggerating the effect of the American intervention and looking at them as a savior.

American policy towards Sudan’s political geography

The meeting focused on the geopolitical situation of Sudan and the American policy towards it. Cameron expressed his concerns about the division of Sudan by regional powers, and warned against calling the Trump administration, which he described as providing peace at the price of making Sudan a slave to these countries. Professor Mohamed Zakaria raised questions about the US vision of the United Nations Mission in Sudan and its responsibility for previous failures. Professor Abdel Moneim Bashir asked about the low priority of Sudan in American policy despite its strategic position and the sanctions imposed on him, while Cameron explained that the conflicts and continuous challenges in Sudan make dealing with it difficult for the United States, which prompts it to focus on more stable areas such as Djibouti and Somalland.

Clarify American sanctions on Sudan

Cameron explained that the recent US sanctions against Sudan due to the use of chemical weapons are not economic, but automatic under American law, and its goal is to deter the future use of chemical weapons. He pointed out that these sanctions have a limited practical impact because the United States does not provide loans to Sudan mainly, and that there is ambiguity about the evidence to which the sanctions were based. He expressed concern that the current US administration’s focus on Middle East issues leaves a narrow field to communicate with Sudan, suggesting that the best way to influence the Trump administration may be through regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE instead of direct channels.