The Middle Eastern and North African ruling classes have been praising a new era of Arab diplomacy for the last three years.
This perspective, seen in American foreign policy circles, suggests that as the US has declined its presence and commitments to the region, local leaders are finding ways to form international agreements to resolve long-term issues.
Recent regional initiatives have been held up as evidence of this newfound diplomatic deftness. The underlying message is that Arabs don't need Western solutions to their crises.
The story conveniently ignores how many crises the actors, who are now assuming the role of statesmen, were responsible for.
Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, was responsible for the Yemeni quagmire, which he is now trying to escape by agreeing to terms with the Islamic Republic. Statesmanship is not being shown here, but rather a submission.
In Washington, there is a bipartisan consensus that the US should reduce its diplomatic ties to the Arab world and reallocate resources to other crisis-ridden areas, such as East Asia and Eastern Europe. However, the notion that regional players are resolving their problems suits that consensus.
The bloody conflict between the rebel generals in Sudan presents a fresh obstacle for emerging Arab diplomacy. It is one thing to hold negotiations during a break in a battle that has worn out the participants, as in the case of the civil wars in Yemen or Syria, for instance. However, it is quite another to call for a cease-fire in the middle of a violent exchange between aggressors who have only recently begun fighting.
US, EU, and UN officials engineered a cease-fire, but it never took hold. The protagonists - the army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the paramilitary leader Mohamed "Hemedti" Hamdan Dagalo - have shown little interest in disarming. Sudan is a country that is both Arab and African, and both are vying for supreme leadership.
The Sudanese crisis is in large part a result of Arab influence. When the military rule of Omar al-Bashir was toppled by a grassroots uprising four years ago, Egypt and other major Arab countries aligned behind the transitional government that included civilians and generals. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates supported Hemedti, who sent RSF fighters to fight for their agenda in Yemen. This notwithstanding, Burhan and Hemedti have been charged with crimes related to the Darfur genocide.
It was the Arab states' concern that the Sudanese aspirations were dashed when the generals, acting together, overthrew the civilian government and took control in Khartoum.
After the generals announced a glaringly phony agreement to reinstate some civilian participation in government, an Emirati consortium signed a preliminary $6 billion agreement to construct a new port on the Red Sea coast.
The fighting between Burhan's and Hemedti's forces should demonstrate to their Arab patrons that the generals cannot be trusted. It would be better to negotiate with a civilian government, free of military influence.
Due to the lack of other financiers and suppliers of weapons, Arab states have the power to rein them in. They should also be able to use their deeper ties with Moscow to limit Wagner's influence.
However, the Saudis, Egyptians, and Emiratis must abandon their historical tendency to favor strongmen and warlords. This would be a credible demonstration of the "new Arab diplomacy."
Comments
Post a Comment