Analyzing the Issues: Sudan's RSF Accuses Egypt of Airstrikes

Sudan's RSF Accuses Egypt of Airstrikes

Analysis by Peacekeeper Insight

Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, the leader of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has accused Egypt of being involved in airstrikes targeting RSF troops. This claim was made in a recorded speech on October 9, 2024.

According to Dagalo, the alleged Egyptian airstrikes pushed back RSF forces from the strategic Jebel Moya area in Sudan’s southeastern Sennar state. The RSF has been engaged in a conflict with the Sudanese army since April 2023, which has resulted in widespread humanitarian crises, including the displacement of almost 10 million people, hunger, and famine.

Egypt has denied Dagalo’s accusations, calling on the international community to verify the evidence supporting his claims. The Egyptian foreign ministry stated that Cairo denies any involvement in the ongoing war in Sudan and urges the international community to investigate the matter.

This development marks a shift in tone from Dagalo’s previous statements, which emphasized the need for peace efforts. Instead, he now suggests that the conflict will continue for an extended period, potentially lasting years.

1. Head of Sudan's RSF accuses Egypt of being involved in airstrikes on group's troops | Reuters

2. Activists report spike in mass civilian deaths after Sudan's army ups airstrikes | Reuters
3. Sudan’s RSF accuses Egypt of involvement in air strikes on its forces | Conflict News | Al Jazeera

Egypt-Sudan Government Relations

The current political relationship between Sudan’s government and Egypt is complex and multifaceted. Sudan’s provisional government, established after the 2021 coup, has maintained good diplomatic ties with Egypt. Both countries cooperate on regional issues, such as counter-terrorism and border security. They also engage in economic cooperation, including trade and infrastructure development.

Evolution Over Time

Historically, the relationship between Sudan and Egypt has been shaped by colonial and post-colonial dynamics. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (1899-1955) saw both British and Egyptian influence over the region. After Sudan gained independence in 1956, Egypt continued to exert significant influence, particularly during the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-1970).

In the 1980s and 1990s, Sudan’s Islamist government, led by Omar al-Bashir, sought to distance itself from Egypt’s secular and Arab nationalist ideology. Tensions arose over issues like border disputes, support for rebel groups, and ideological differences.

In recent years, the relationship has improved. The 2019 Sudanese Revolution led to a power transition, and Sudan’s new government has sought to normalize relations with Egypt. Both

countries have engaged in high-level diplomatic visits and cooperation on regional issues.

Key Milestones

1898: British General Kitchener defeats the Mahdist State in Sudan, leading to joint British-Egyptian rule (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan).
1956: Sudan gains independence, with Egypt continuing to exert significant influence.
1980s-1990s: Tensions arise over ideological differences and support for rebel groups.
2019: Sudanese Revolution leads to a power transition, and Sudan’s new government seeks to normalize relations with Egypt.
Present day: Sudan’s provisional government maintains good diplomatic ties with Egypt, cooperating on regional issues and economic development.

Overall, the political relationship between Sudan’s government and Egypt has evolved from a complex colonial legacy to a more nuanced and cooperative dynamic in recent years.

4. Sudan country profile - BBC News

5. Politics of Sudan - Wikipedia

6. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan - Wikipedia

Sudan-Egypt Ideological Divides

The primary ideological disagreements between Sudan’s Islamist government and Egypt’s secular government stem from differences in political ideology, religious beliefs, and regional alignments.

Islamism vs. Secularism: Sudan’s Islamist government, led by the National Congress Party (NCP), is rooted in Islamic ideology, emphasizing Sharia law and the role of Islam in politics. In contrast, Egypt’s secular government, led by the Arab Republic of Egypt, prioritizes a secular, democratic system and separation of religion and state.
Regional Alignments: Sudan has historically been aligned with Iran and other Islamist groups, while Egypt has maintained strong ties with the United States and other Western nations. This divergence in regional allegiances has contributed to tensions between the two governments.
Domestic Policies: Sudan’s Islamist government has been criticized for human rights abuses, authoritarianism, and suppression of opposition groups, whereas Egypt’s secular government has been praised for its commitment to democracy and human rights.

Impact on Bilateral Relations

The ideological disagreements have significantly impacted Egyptian-Sudanese relations:

Tensions and Suspicion: The differing political ideologies and regional alignments have fostered an atmosphere of mistrust and tension between the two governments. Sudan’s Islamist government has been accused of supporting extremist groups, while Egypt’s secular government has been critical of Sudan’s human rights record.
Limited Cooperation: Despite historical ties and shared interests, cooperation between Egypt and Sudan has been limited. Sudan has been reluctant to engage with Egypt on issues like the Nile River dispute, and Egypt has been hesitant to provide significant economic or military assistance to Sudan due to concerns over its Islamist government.
Regional Competition: The ideological differences have contributed to a regional competition for influence, with Egypt seeking to maintain its position as a leader in the Arab world and Sudan attempting to assert its independence and Islamist credentials.

Overall, the primary ideological disagreements between Sudan’s Islamist government and Egypt’s secular government have created a complex and challenging environment for bilateral relations, characterized by tension, limited cooperation, and regional competition.

7. Egypt & Africa - Egyptian-Sudanese Relations

8. Egyptian-Sudanese Relations on the Mend, but Tensions Remain

9. Egypt–Sudan relations - Wikipedia

Egypt-Sudan Border Dispute Impact

The ongoing border disputes and demarcation issues between Sudan and Egypt have hindered their political cooperation. The most significant flashpoints revolve around two main areas: the Halayib Triangle and Bir Tawil. The Halayib Triangle is a 20,500 km² region claimed by both countries since Sudan’s independence in 1956. The Bir Tawil region is a 2,060 km² area that is not claimed by either country, making it a unique case of unclaimed territory. The dispute has led to a wide range of issues such as: tensions and mistrust between the two governments, making it challenging to establish robust diplomatic relations; limited cooperation on regional issues, such as counter-terrorism and security matters; and a lack of progress in resolving other long-standing issues, including the sharing of Nile waters and border demarcation.

Impact on Regional Relations

Tensions and Diplomatic Strains: The dispute has led to strained relations between Egypt and Sudan, with both countries engaging in verbal sparring and occasional military deployments.
Border Control and Migration: The dispute has affected border control, with Sudanese refugees fleeing conflict in their country seeking asylum in Egypt, leading to humanitarian concerns and economic burdens.
Economic Interests: The dispute has implications for economic cooperation and trade between the two countries, particularly regarding the Nile River and its water resources.

Impact on Economic Cooperation

The border disputes and demarcation issues have also affected economic cooperation between Sudan and Egypt:

Trade and commerce: The limited opening of border crossings has hindered the free flow of goods and people, leading to:

Reduced trade volumes and economic losses for both countries.
Increased costs and complexities for businesses and individuals.

Infrastructure development: The unresolved border disputes have slowed or stalled joint infrastructure projects, such as the development of the Red Sea ports and transportation corridors.
Investment and tourism: The political tensions and uncertainty surrounding the border disputes have deterred foreign investment and tourism, depriving both economies of potential growth opportunities.

Recent Developments

Renaissance Dam Dispute: Egypt’s concerns over the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’s impact on Nile River water levels have led to tensions with Sudan, which has sided with Ethiopia.
Military Deployments: Egypt has deployed troops along its Western border with Libya to counter terrorism, while Sudan has withdrawn its forces from the Halaib Triangle.
Humanitarian Crisis: The conflict in Sudan has led to a massive influx of refugees into Egypt, straining its resources and infrastructure.

Community Perspectives

Despite the political and economic challenges, there is a strong desire for cooperation and normalization between the two countries. The Nubian community, in particular, has been advocating for improved relations and greater people-to-people exchanges. However, their efforts have been hindered by the lack of progress in resolving the border disputes.

Outlook
The Egypt-Sudan border dispute remains unresolved, with both countries holding firm to their claims. The situation is likely to continue straining regional relations and affecting economic cooperation. The humanitarian crisis in Sudan and the refugee influx into Egypt will require sustained international attention and support.

10. Egypt–Sudan border - Wikipedia

11. The Egypt-Sudan Border Dispute - WorldAtlas

12. Stuck in limbo: Despair and frustration at the Sudan-Egypt border | Conflict News | Al Jazeera

13. Halaib Triangle - Wikipedia

14. What is going on between Egypt and Sudan? | GCC | Al Jazeera

15. Is Egypt planning a full-scale invasion of Sudan? - Atlantic Council

Egypt's Conflict Involvement Motives

Based on the provided Egypt’s alleged involvement in the conflict may be driven by several strategic considerations:

Regional Security: Egypt has a long-standing peace treaty with Israel, and any escalation in the conflict could potentially jeopardize this treaty. By intervening, Egypt may aim to prevent a wider conflict that could threaten its national security and regional stability.
Economic Interests: Egypt is heavily reliant on the Suez Canal, a critical trade route. A prolonged conflict in the region could disrupt global trade flows, affecting Egypt’s economy. By maintaining stability, Egypt may seek to protect its economic interests and ensure continued revenue from the canal.
Middle East Balance of Power: Egypt has historically played a key role in regional politics, seeking to maintain a balance of power between rival factions. Its involvement in the conflict may be aimed at preventing a dominant player from emerging, which could upset the regional status quo and threaten Egyptian influence.

Impact on Regional Stability

Egypt’s involvement in the conflict could have significant implications for regional stability:

Escalation Risk: If Egypt becomes directly involved, it could escalate the conflict, drawing in more regional actors and increasing the risk of a wider war.
Regional Economic Disruption: A prolonged conflict could disrupt global trade flows, affecting regional economies, including Egypt’s. This could lead to economic instability, inflation, and potential social unrest.
Shift in Regional Dynamics: Egypt’s involvement could alter the regional balance of power, potentially creating new alliances and rivalries. This could have long-term consequences for regional stability and security.

Key Takeaways

Egypt’s alleged involvement in the conflict is likely driven by a combination of regional security, economic, and strategic interests. Its actions could impact regional stability by escalating the conflict, disrupting trade flows, and shifting the regional balance of power.

16. Six Dilemmas Facing Egypt | United States Institute of Peace

17. Explainer: What Middle East conflict means for the global economy | Reuters

Egypt's Foreign Policy Alignments

Important Question: How does Egypt's involvement in the conflict align with its foreign policy goals and values, particularly in regards to human rights, democracy, and regional governance? What we know and need to keep in mind.

Egypt’s involvement in regional conflicts and its foreign policy goals and values can be analyzed as follows:

Human Rights: Egypt’s human rights record has been criticized by international organizations and NGOs. The EU’s policy priorities vis-à-vis Egypt are largely undefined and undermined by member states’ independent engagement with the country, which precludes a unified policy agenda. The EU’s attempts to raise human rights concerns, particularly in relation to the shrinking civic space in Egypt, are often relegated to an ineffectual European Parliament. Egypt’s government has failed to enact laws and policies to address violence against women and has impeded access to justice for refugees and asylum seekers.

Democracy: Egypt’s democratic credentials have been questioned, with the country’s government having cracked down on dissent and opposition. The Trump administration’s policy toward Egypt prioritized security cooperation over democracy and human rights concerns. The EU’s relationship with Egypt is largely defined by trade, with security and arms sales agreements being a significant aspect.

Regional Governance: Egypt has been seeking to reassert its regional leadership role, particularly through its close alliance with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). However, some Egyptian officials have expressed disappointment with the UAE’s behavior and its unwillingness to openly support Cairo’s foreign policy goals. Egypt’s involvement in regional conflicts, such as the Libyan crisis, has been driven by its desire to maintain stability and security in the region, as well as to counter the influence of rival powers like Turkey and Qatar.

Alignment with Foreign Policy Goals and Values: Egypt’s involvement in regional conflicts and its foreign policy goals and values appear to prioritize security and stability over human rights and democracy. The country’s government has been willing to compromise on these values in order to maintain its regional influence and secure economic and military aid from external partners. The EU’s lack of a unified policy agenda and its focus on trade and security cooperation with Egypt have enabled Cairo to pursue its goals without significant pressure to reform its human rights record or democratic practices.

In summary, Egypt’s involvement in regional conflicts aligns with its foreign policy goals and values by prioritizing security and stability over human rights and democracy. The country’s government has been willing to compromise on these values to maintain its regional influence and secure external support, while the EU’s policy priorities have been shaped by trade and security considerations rather than a strong emphasis on human rights and democracy.

18. Burning ambition: Egypt’s return to regional leadership and how Europe should respond | ECFR

19. World Report 2023: Egypt | Human Rights Watch

20. Navigating the Democracy-Security Dilemma in U.S. Foreign Policy: Lessons from Egypt, India, and Turkey - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Sources: