Question:
On December 5, 2022, television and media outlets in Sudan broadcast scenes of the signing of a "Framework Agreement" at the Republican Palace between the army—represented by the Commander of the Army and Chairman of the Sovereignty Council, and his deputy—and 52 political parties and blocs. This agreement paves the way for a two-year transitional government leading to general elections, under international sponsorship, particularly from the US, Britain, and the UN representative who acted as the director for this agreement in the form it was signed. However, there is opposition to this agreement, and demonstrations took place on December 8 and 9, 2022, against it. What does this agreement mean? Who benefits from it? What about the opposition to the agreement? Is it expected to last?
Answer:
To clarify the answer to these questions, we review the following points:
First: From the Texts of the Agreement:
The agreement states in its first part that "Sudan is a multicultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious state," despite the fact that more than 96% of the people of Sudan embrace the Islamic religion; thus, their religion is one and their culture is one, regardless of their many tribes. Therefore, the agreement is a deception to distance Islam from life and from the obligation of applying it in governance, economy, education, the social system, the penal system, and internal, foreign, military, and industrial policy, and all affairs of life for individuals and society. For this reason, the agreement stated: "Sudan is a civil, democratic, federal, parliamentary state, in which sovereignty belongs to the people, who are the source of powers." All of this contradicts Islam, as it makes Sudan a civil state, meaning a secular state that separates religion from life, and a democratic one that gives the right of legislation to human beings, thus not making sovereignty for the Sharia and its source, the Quran and Sunnah. It makes the state federal, which is a system of government that contradicts Islam, makes the state divisible, and makes its regions prone to secession, as happened in South Sudan! It seems that this agreement is intended to remove any trace of Islam in Sudan, as it stated: "The state does not impose a religion on any person, and the state shall be impartial regarding religious affairs and matters of belief and conscience. It guarantees freedoms and commitment to international human rights covenants, especially women's rights covenants." This means that these forces that drafted the agreement deliberately aimed to distance Islam from Muslims in this Muslim country.
The agreement states in its second part: "Handing over the transitional authority to a full civilian authority... the state shall have a president with ceremonial duties... then an executive level headed by a civilian prime minister chosen by the forces signing the agreement, in addition to a legislative council and another for security and defense headed by the prime minister, including the leaders of the regular services and the armed struggle movements that signed the Juba Peace Agreement." It also states: "The army shall distance itself from politics and from practicing economic, commercial, and investment activities, and the Rapid Support Forces and the forces of the armed movements shall be integrated into the army according to arrangements to be agreed upon later in the Integration and Demobilization Commission within a security and military reform plan leading to a single professional and national army." It further states: "Implementing the Juba Peace Agreement... and completing peace with the non-signatory armed movements." It also stipulates: "Launching a comprehensive process for constitution-making, under the supervision of the Constitution-Making Commission for dialogue and agreement on constitutional principles and issues, with the participation of all regions of Sudan." Finally, it states: "Organizing a comprehensive electoral process at the end of a transitional period of 24 months starting from the date of the appointment of the prime minister."
Second: Local Positions:
During the signing ceremony, the Commander of the Army and Chairman of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, referred to this by saying, "We are committed to the military institution's final exit from the political process, holding elections at the end of the transitional period, and implementing the issues presented in the framework agreement... The country is going through exceptional circumstances. We were in a state of discord between the political and military forces. This negatively affected the country. We seek to transform the army into a constitutional institution far from any bias toward a party, group, or ideology." His deputy, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, said, "The signing of the political framework agreement represents the beginning of a new and wonderful phase in the history of the Sudanese state. It is hoped that the signing of the agreement will end the current political crisis and prepare for a new transitional phase during which the mistakes that accompanied the previous period are avoided. Since the beginning of the transitional period in August 2019, there were differences between the components of the transition and wrong political practices that led to what happened on October 25. It was also a political mistake that opened the door for the return of the counter-revolutionary forces... Therefore, the priorities of the next government must be to implement the Juba Agreement, complete peace with the non-signatory movements, work on the return of displaced persons and refugees to their original villages, and address land problems and nomad issues" (Official SUNA Agency, 12/5/2022). This agreement rescues the military leadership headed by al-Burhan, his deputy, and those with them from their predicament, as the people have come to reject their rule and they have no internal support. It provides the military leadership with immunity and protection from judicial prosecution for the crimes they committed, allowing them to escape punishment. They were unable to manage the country's affairs and failed to solve its problems; all they did was preserve American influence after the fall of their fellow agent Omar al-Bashir. It should be noted that the other party, known as the Forces of Freedom and Change and the parties that formed the government, also failed to manage the country's affairs, address its problems, and secure the minimum requirements of life for the people. All they did was maintain British influence in the country and stand in the way of a radical regime change.
There is opposition to this agreement, and demonstrations took place on December 8 and 9, 2022, rejecting it. Some of these opposition forces are insincere, just as they are fundamentally unfaithful to the Ummah and the people of Sudan, such as the Justice and Equality Movement led by Gibril Ibrahim, the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Minni Arko Minnawi, and political parties allied with the Forces of Freedom and Change that follow the British colonizer. Britain has established a fallback position and forces acting as a parallel opposition. If the agreement fails, these forces move as opposition components to cover their agency and work to lead the people who have not been able to rid themselves of the dominance of the agents—be they American or British. If they get rid of one, they fall into the traps of the other, and so on. This has continued in this manner since the country was given its superficial independence and the colonizer exited militarily while continuing in political, intellectual, economic, and other forms.
This agreement appears to some as if it solves the intractable governance crisis in the country—the dispute between the army and the political components—by handing over power to the political forces and distancing the army from governance and politics. However, it is nothing more than a dispute between agents over seats. It does not solve Sudan's primarily economic problems that the people suffer from and for which they revolted. It does not solve the problem of governance because it is a struggle between tool-agents for the account of the major powers competing over Sudan. It cannot solve these problems and others because it is based on a corrupt and false foundation, which is the separation of religion from life, the state, and society. It is also a temporary compromise between the army and certain unfaithful political forces that follow foreign powers. Furthermore, a previous agreement was signed between the two parties for a transitional phase and then collapsed with the coup of October 25. The issue is not the formation of a civilian government or otherwise, as that provides nothing. There is no guarantee for its realization, because each group lies in wait for the other, and each is commanded by the competing major powers.
Third: International Positions:
The US praised the agreement. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Twitter on 12/6/2022: "The signing of an initial political framework agreement in Sudan is an important step toward forming a civilian-led government and establishing constitutional arrangements to guide Sudan through a transitional period culminating in elections." The US State Department issued a statement on its website on 12/7/2022, saying it "supports the Sudanese civilian parties and the military to conduct inclusive dialogues on outstanding issues before concluding a final agreement and transferring power to a civilian-led transitional government." It warned of imposing sanctions on anyone who undermines the agreement, saying: "The Department has decided today to expand the visa restriction policy against current or former Sudanese officials or other individuals believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic transition in Sudan through the suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms." This agreement is an important step for America to preserve its influence in Sudan, preventing the fall of the loyal military authority led by its agents Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, his deputy Mohamed Dagalo, and their likes. This is especially true since they carried out a coup against the civilian government over a year ago on 10/25/2021 and stopped the course of the transitional phase that was signed between the two parties in an agreement on 8/21/2019. That agreement had stipulated that the military would head the Sovereignty Council for 21 months, followed by the civilians for 18 months, which was extended to 53 months after the Juba Agreement on 10/3/2020. The coup of October 25, 2021, came to preempt the opportunity for British agents and prevent them from heading the Sovereignty Council. This latest agreement saves America's agents from collapse and judicial prosecution, thereby preserving America's influence in Sudan and preventing British agents from dominating everything, as they control the political medium.
Britain announced, through its Minister for Africa and International Development, Andrew Mitchell, its welcome of the agreement, saying: "The Quad and the Troika countries welcome this important step toward a civilian-led agreement in Sudan. The United Kingdom looks forward to working closely with such a government once it is formed. We urge all actors to unite urgently in order to reach a final agreement" (Sudan Today, 12/6/2022). Britain's ambassador to the Security Council, James Kariuki, warned of "dire consequences for delaying reaching a final agreement in Sudan" and expressed "Britain's support for the upcoming civilian government led by civilians through coordination with international partners." He pointed to the "fragile situation in several parts of Sudan, particularly the Blue Nile region and West Kordofan state" (Sudan News, 12/6/2022). Britain, like America, intervenes directly in Sudan. It declares its support for the agreement as it was one of the supervisors of its drafting and production alongside America via the UN envoy. It declares its support for the upcoming civilian government, which is expected to be formed mostly from its agents, thereby maintaining its influence in the political medium in preparation for taking over governance and attempting to destabilize the army's influence in rule and politics.
Fourth: In conclusion, by contemplating these current events in Sudan, it becomes clear that the international conflict within it has not changed. Rather, it is a conflict that is not in secret but in public between America, which controls al-Burhan, his deputy, and his group on one side, and the Freedom and Change and the parties allied with it—who are agents of Britain and its followers—on the other side. Because neither party, America or Britain, has been able so far to extend its influence over both the military and civilian components together, America and Britain resorted to an agreement, as happened from the beginning of the removal of Bashir until their disagreement escalated on October 25, and then they returned to consensus now! It is a temporary consensus until one of the two parties is able to seize full influence, militarily and civilly. We have previously pointed this out since the beginning of al-Burhan's rule up to the occurrence of the (coup), as we previously warned in two publications:
- We said in a previous answer issued on 9/23/2019, i.e., around the beginning of the two parties' participation in governance, regarding the agreement of the military component with the civilian component to share power: "What is expected is that America and Britain will not coexist peacefully together, as their interests are different and their local tools are followers of them. Therefore, each of the two parties will work to abort the moves of the other! From monitoring current events, contemplating their related matters, and scrutinizing statements externally and locally, especially by American and European officials... it is possible to weigh the means that each of the two parties will use to harass its opponent, get hold of it, and then exclude it from power..." and we mentioned them there. This is indeed what happened.
Then we said in a subsequent answer on 10/25/2021: "...With what the situation in Sudan has come to, and the malicious paths pushed by America's agents and the other malicious paths that the agents of the English and Europeans tried to take—all of which involve bloodshed, injustice, hunger, and crises—the people in Sudan must clarify their matter and turn their backs on all these failed rulers, the agents of America, the English, and the Europeans, who place the blood of the Sudanese people and its resources at the service of these kaffir countries. They must settle their matter and unite their ranks against all these agents..."
As for the questions of whether this agreement will last and be implemented, this is doubtful. Will it save the country? That is unlikely, because it is built on falsehood, because it is extracted from competing colonial powers that have temporarily agreed, and because it is signed between agent parties who care for nothing but seats, positions, and preserving their financial gains and gaining more money. They do not care for the affairs of the country and the people, nor for its revival and liberation from the yoke of colonialism and the grip of the colonizers. Nor do they even know a path to revival, because they work for colonial entities working to tighten their influence in the country intellectually and politically, and because these colonial entities, especially America and Britain, are in conflict over extending influence in Sudan. Foreign intervention is obvious to everyone, as foreigners were present at its signing in the Republican Palace; rather, the one who drafted the agreement is a foreigner, the UN envoy under the direct supervision of the Americans and the English—the two parties of the international conflict in Sudan—under the name of the Quad and the Troika. The Quad is America with its agent Saudi Arabia, and Britain with its agent the UAE; America uses its agent Saudi Arabia to influence local parties and pay bribes, and likewise, Britain uses the UAE for such purposes for its account. The Troika is America and Britain, along with Norway as a European party that has no influence except when necessary and for conducting secret talks, which often take place there in its capital, Oslo, famous for cooking secret agreements before production. America threatens those who fail the agreement with sanctions, and Britain warns of dire results if the agreement fails.
As for the UN envoy, the German Volker Perthes, who pleases both the American and British conflicting parties, he warns of the failure of the agreement. He said in a briefing before the UN Security Council: "As Sudan moves closer to reaching a final political agreement, those who do not see support for their interests through a political settlement may escalate attempts to undermine the ongoing political process" (Al-Rakoba Sudanese, 12/8/2022). It is a temporary agreement between the two parties, perhaps serving as a "warrior's rest," after which the conflict will resume until one party manages to triumph over the other. If one party triumphs over the other, that party will not surrender; it will create problems in the country in its east, west, north, south, and in its heart in the capital, because it has its agent tools. If the country is not cleansed of them, the situation will not calm down, and the people will not see a glimmer of hope or taste a decent, good life, and they will lose the happiness of both worlds. Rather, it is the duty of every sincere person to move quickly and seriously with those working to establish the Righteous Khilafah on the method of Prophethood, which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave glad tidings of:
ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةٌ عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ
"Then there will be a Khilafah on the Method of Prophethood." (Reported by Ahmad and At-Tayalisi)
وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ
"And on that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah. He gives victory to whom He wills, and He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful." (TMQ Ar-Rum [30]: 4-5)
17th Jumada al-Ula 1444 AH
12/11/2022 CE