Winners and Losers of Red Sea Politics in Sudan - African Arguments | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Winners and Losers of Red Sea Politics in Sudan – African Arguments

Published

 on



Debating Ideas is a new section that aims to reflect the values and editorial ethos of the African Arguments book series, publishing engaged, often radical, scholarship, original and activist writing from within the African continent and beyond. It will offer debates and engagements, contexts and controversies, and reviews and responses flowing from the African Arguments books.

Credit: Arab Weekly

 

Current tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE have encouraged a deepening of  diplomatic relations between the Saudi government and the transitional authority in Sudan. However, these foreign policy developments have not engendered a shift in the military’s approach and attitude towards its civilian counterpart for the benefit of the transition period.

Saudi Arabia is deepening its influence in Sudan. As chair of the Friends of Sudan Conference in August 2020, the platform allowed it, among other things, to influence the Sudanese Revolutionary Forces (SRF)—a coalition of armed groups who represent the peripheries of Sudan—to sign the Juba Peace Agreement (JPA). Recent tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE will further encourage Saudi foreign policy interventions in Sudan through deepening its relations with both the civilian and armed components of the transitional government. This move comes with the possibility of the Sudanese military abandoning its alliances with the UAE, allowing Saudi Arabia considerable influence over Sudanese foreign policy.

Saudi Arabia’s recent foreign policy interventions in Sudan started with it announcing a $3 billion bilateral increase in funding to Sudan’s various sectors. Notwithstanding that the country is pressed for foreign reserves, these funds come with a concern that Sudan is caught between Saudi Arabia and UAE tensions, polarising competing segments of the transitional government, and further undermining the transition period.

An additional source of concern is the Sudanese military’s recent restoration of relations with both Turkey and Qatar, signalling the military’s intentions to continue to hold power in Sudan through positioning itself with the Gulf’s interests beyond the supposed conclusion of the transition period in 2023–24.

Soft power: the promise of agricultural investments

Saudi Arabia’s proactive interventionist approach to Sudanese domestic and international affairs is not just about managing regional power axes. Saudi initiated agriculture investments in Sudan to protect its own food security while tactically taking steps to reduce UAE’s influence over the Sudanese government. The interest of both countries diverged with Saudi Arabia giving priority to its national interests that are tied to Saudi Vision 2030 over its alliance with the UAE. Sudan tilts the balance of regional power because of its geo-strategic location between the Red Sea, and East and West Africa—areas that the UAE has been steadily expanding its political and economic influences into.

To exert its influence, Saudi Arabia used its financial clout to encourage creditors, partners of the World Bank, to approve Sudan’s debt relief at the Paris Conference on 17 May. As a result, and in a step that demonstratedSaudi’s deepening influence over Sudan’s new political elite, Hadi Idriss, a member of Sudan’s Security Council and chairman of the SRF, paid a visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2021 where he met with Saudi officials. The outcome of the meetings was an agreement that Sudan and Saudi Arabia will create a joint company to coordinate $3 billion worth of investments in Sudan, and that Saudi will commit to sending relief teams to various regions of Sudan.

Meanwhile, the UAE’s influence over the transitional government is exerted primarily through the military leadership of the transitional council; Lt. General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and Lt. General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo “Hemetti” whom Saudi Arabia backs as well. Leaders of the civilian arm of the transitional government, the Freedom and Change Collation (FFC), currently members of Prime Minister Hamdok’s cabinet of ministers’ members of the Sovereign Council (SC)—Sudan’s highest transitional body—are also part of these regional arrangements.

Saudi Arabia’s backing of Sudan has encouraged Saudi agriculture companies such as the Rajhi Group to invest further in Sudan. It was reported that its executives held meetings on 17 and 28 June with Minni Minawi, Darfur’s new governor as per the JPA, member of the SRF and head of the Sudan Liberation Movement-Minni Minawi (SLM-MM). Further to that, Minawi’s visit to Saudi Arabia in June was meant to encourage Saudi investments in the war-torn region of Darfur.

With Sudan being admitted to the World Bank’s Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) on 30 June paving the way for substantive debt forgiveness of Sudan’s debts by the international community, which stand at around $60 billion, Saudi’s investments in Sudan are safeguarded for the foreseeable time. That is because the main impediment to Sudan receiving debt relief was the country being included on the US State Sponsor of Terrorism (STT) list that discouraged foreign banks to carry out transactions with Sudan in order to comply with US laws. Sudan being removed sends a signal to foreign banks and companies that doing businesses in Sudan will not result in them facing legal challenges with US authorities.

Based on these developments, both Gibril Ibrahim of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)—a signatory armed faction to the JPA—and Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, who is also a leader within the SRF, and Al-Hadi Mohamed, Minister of Investment and International Cooperation, held a joint conference on 9 July with Saudi Arabia’s Sovereign Wealth Fund and 40 Saudi companies in Saudi Arabia. The outcome of the conference is an agreement to open 15 branches of Saudi banks in Sudan and to establish a ministerial committee with the intention to facilitate more investments in Sudan, further encouraging Saudi Arabia to increase its influence in Sudan above the $35 billion invested in Sudan as of 2020, with $26.5 billion previously invested in agriculture alone.

Soft power in the Red Sea

To further its own interest of expanding tourism on the Red Sea coastline to meet its Saudi Vision 2030, Saudi Arabia has doubled down its influence in Sudan, the troubled and conflict ridden Red Seastate, through investments and development projects. Sudan’s 750 kilometres coastline adjacent to Saudi Arabia makes the region and the state prone to Saudi’s domestic and regional interests.

Another intention of the investments is to compete with the UAE over control of the Red Sea port. The competition became more visible since Saudi investors shared a plan to build a new port in Sudan’s Red Sea coast thereby challenging the UAE’s Dubai Port conglomerate to control Red Sea ports leading to the Bab Al-Mandab straits and securing the Gulf of Aden. BothSaudi and the UAE are competing over acquiring ports in the Red Sea region. That is because the UAE has transformed Jabel Ali port into an influential port between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.[i]

These competitive bids over Red Sea and regional politics through foreign policy interventions are not unique to Sudan. Saudi Arabia is developing deeper ties with Oman through a number of agreements and the opening of a direct 800 kilometre highway between both countries. The highway should allow Saudi Arabia to reduce its dependence on exporting its oil through the Strait of Hormoz, exposing Saudi trade to Iran’s blockades as was previously the case.

The competition over controlling Port Sudan is more likely now than ever before with Saudi Arabia reaching an agreement with Sudan to develop an extensive industrial free zone around the port that includes connecting it to 800,000 hectares of arable area in the southeast near the Atbara river in Sudan.[ii]

Loss of the UAE

It seems that the UAE hast lost its influence over both Lt. General Al-Burhan, the chairman of the SC, and the commander of the Sudanese military and his deputy Lt. General Hemedti who follow Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy direction for now. UAE’s move to restore its  relations with Qatar and improving relations with Turkey this year are a direct response to its tense relations with Saudi Arabia.

This will engender a dramatic change in Sudanese foreign policy caught between oscillating Gulf politics as it was the UAE that engineered the boycott against Qatar. The restoration of relations, especially with Qatar, seemed to have been encouraged as a result of Saudi Arabia ending its boycott with Qatar in January earlier this year.

Further proof that the UAE has been losing influence over Sudan is Lt. General Al-Burhan refusing a proposal by the UAE to divide the disputed Fashaga lands with Ethiopia while the border areas are disputed. The UAE tabled a proposal of dividing the Fashaga lands as 40% for Sudan, 40% for UAE, and 20% for Ethiopia as part of the initiative to end border clashes between Sudan and Ethiopia. Al-Burhan’s decisions are domestically motivated as well; his fear of plummeting popular credibility will undermine his plans to undo Sudan’s transition to democracy, starting border clashes with Ethiopia that he cannot win, all in support of his own presidential ambitions.

Although there are tensions arising between Saudi Arabia and the UAE in their vie to control the Red Sea region, Saudi Arabia overtaking UAE’s role in Sudan does not change much of the Sudanese military plans to control the country’s transition process or take charge of Sudan after the transition period ends, even though an extension of the transition period is more likely than not.

EndNotes

[i]Author interview with an opponent to the former Bashir regime (phone interview 22 July 2021].

[ii]See Africa Intelligence: SUDAN/SAUDI ARABIA : Riyad looks to set up shop in Khartoum (africaintelligence.com)

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights

Published

 on

 

CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.

The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.

The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”

Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”

He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.

Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.

About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.

Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.

Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.

Flip-flopping on Florida

On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”

Trump on vetoing a national ban

Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.

During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”

This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”

‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban

Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.

He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.

In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.

At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.

Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women

In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.

“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”

Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.

Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.

Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.

IVF and contraception

In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.

In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.

Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.

Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.

During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.

Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.

As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.

Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe, NDP’s Carla Beck react to debate |

Published

 on

 

Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan political leaders back on campaign trail after election debate

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.

Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.

Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.

Election day is Oct. 28.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version