COUP LEAVES WASHINGTON SEARCHING FOR NEW FRIENDS

▶ Sudan’s transition puts Trump’s team in a bind as US talks with Khartoum stall, Joyce Karam writes

From the moment he came to power in a military coup in 1989 until his downfall in another coup on Thursday, Sudan’s Omar Al Bashir was not a friend of Washington and at critical moments undermined its interests.

But despite tense relations, the US government faces a new set of challenges as it tries to navigate its way through the tumult in Khartoum after his removal. Experts argue that a post-Al Bashir transition that would guarantee “continuity and stability” may be Washington’s best bet despite the Donald Trump administration’s lavish talk about “democratic elections” and “respect of human rights” in Sudan.

Washington’s challenge in Sudan is now in seeking a civilian transition while acknowledging its limited leverage and not alienating the military hierarchy, Sudan’s most powerful leadership element.

The US State Department on Thursday refrained from using the word “coup” in describing the military overthrow of Mr Al Bashir. Instead, it highlighted an “opportunity [for Sudan] to set itself on a new path – one that must include legitimate democratic elections, respect for human rights, and a civilian-led government.”

Bronwyn Bruton, deputy director of the Africa Centre at the Atlantic Council, is not surprised that Washington avoided the word “coup” in describing Thursday’s events.

“Omar Al Bashir was never recognised as a constitutional leader by Washington. He came to power via a coup in 1989, which makes what happened a coup against a coup,”

Ms Bruton told The National.

For the US, she said, “it’s a technical issue”, and one that relates to not recognising Mr Al Bashir’s power grab in the first place in 1989.

Another reason for choice of language could relate to congressional laws that prohibit funding to countries

“whose duly elected leader of government is deposed by decree or military coup”. That was behind former president Barack Obama’s decision in 2013 not to call the deposing of Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi a coup either.

Ms Bruton said that the US will try to balance its Sudanese interests “in a way that would guarantee continuity and stability”.

Despite Washington’s tense relations with Mr Al Bashir, and designating Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993 under his leadership, “there was a semi-viable strategy in engaging with the regime to get reforms in the last four years”, she said. “This strategy may be upended now.”

Mr Obama’s quiet engagement with Khartoum started in 2015 with the loosening of some sanctions.

In 2017, the Trump administration lifted a 20-year old trade embargo on Sudan, and the CIA opened an office there. But now, the engagement process is at a halt.

The US said it “suspended further Joint Review Committee discussions on Phase II” that was scheduled to start in two weeks from now.

This process was designed “to expand bilateral ties with Sudan in six key areas” that define US interests there.

These are: severing ties with North Korea; expanding counter terrorism co-operation; resolving internal conflicts; expanding humanitarian access; protecting human rights; and addressing outstanding legal claims related to victims of terrorism.

The rise of Gen Awad Ibn Auf as the new interim leader of Sudan was also undesirable news for Washington. Gen Auf was sanctioned by the US Treasury in 2007 for his role in human rights violations.

“He is a war criminal and he is no better than Bashir, but the US is lacking other options,” Ms Bruton said.

Later on Friday, it was announced that Gen Auf resigned and appointed Lt Gen Abdel Fattah Al Burhan as his replacement. The resignation came less than 24 hours after Mr Auf was sworn in.

The lack of alternatives for the Trump administration sums up its challenge in Khartoum.

“The old regime remains unpalatable but there is no alternative right now, and the military is a known entity,” Ms Bruton said. Continuity, stability and seeing an interim council that has reformers in it, may be the way forward for Washington.

Ms Bruton saw very little likelihood that western powers would intervene on behalf of Sudan’s street protesters, and added “there are questions about the Sudan Professional Association [opposition group], as to who is behind them and whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood”.

The concern for the Trump administration is that it “may be lacking the capacity to address Sudan,” Ms Bruton said.

The US has no ambassador in Sudan, and she feared that Washington was being unrealistic in its rhetoric.

“Calling for a quick transition and free and fair elections is not realistic given the current political play that favours the old regime and Muslim Brotherhood, making it hard for the democratic civil forces [to] compete,” she said, arguing instead for “a stable interim arrangement” to guide US policy.

The old regime remains unpalatable but there is no alternative right now, and the military is a known entity BRONWYN BRUTON Atlantic Council