Tag: transitions

Sudans ungerader Reformprozess

Seit seinem Amtsantritt im August 2019 bemüht sich Abdalla Hamdok, Sudans Premierminister, um Frieden in seinem Land. Der Übergangsprozess nach dem Sturz von Diktator al-Bashir sei eine große Chance für sein Land und die gesamte Region am Horn von Afrika, betonte er bei zahlreichen internationalen Auftritten. Gleichzeitig sei die Transition „unordentlich“ und „nicht-linear“. Im letzten Jahr wurde sehr deutlich, was Hamdok damit meinte.

Dieser Text erschien im Jahrbuch 2020/21 der Deutschen Afrika Stiftung. Redaktionsschluss des Texts war März 2021.

Ein widriges Erbe

Hamdoks Regierung stand vor einem Grundproblem vieler demokratischen Transitionen. Sie musste einer massiven Wirtschaftskrise mit einem völlig kapazitätsschwachen Staat begegnen. Mit einer zivil-militärischen Übergangsregierung und einem überwiegend technokratisch geprägten ersten Kabinett und ohne eigenes demokratisches Mandat konnte Hamdok nicht „durchregieren“. Wirtschaftsreformen verlangten der Bevölkerung und der fragilen Koalition Härten und Zugeständnisse ab. Internationale finanzielle Unterstützung erfolgte nur allmählich, auch weil diese auf bestimmte grundlegende Reformen angewiesen war. So war jeder Schritt der Regierung im Übergangsprozess unvollständig, umstritten und erfolgte häufig verzögert.

Viele ehrgeizige Zeitpläne gingen nicht auf. Die Friedensverhandlungen dauerten viermal so lang wie ursprünglich geplant. Dazu kamen Krisen, die selbst deutlich besser aufgestellte Regierungen unter Druck gesetzt hätten: Covid-19 belastete Sudans ohnehin schwaches Gesundheitssystem. Rekordfluten überschwemmten rund ein Viertel aller Ackerflächen. Der Krieg in der äthiopischen Region Tigray trieb über 60.000 Menschen über die Grenze nach Sudan und führte zu militärischen Spannungen in einem zwischen beiden Ländern umstrittenen Grenzgebiet.

Zentrale Akteure spalteten sich, was die politische Abstimmung erschwerte. Dies betraf insbesondere die Koalition aus Parteien, Gewerkschaften und zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen, die „Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC)“. Die Umma Party, welche die letzte zivile Regierung vor al-Bashirs Putsch 1989 geführt hatte, sagte sich von den FFC los. Auch die kommunistische Partei zog sich einige Monate später aus den FFC zurück. Gleichzeitig fehlte es den zivil geführten Ministerien an allen Ecken und Enden an zuverlässigem Personal, um Regierungsprojekte zu planen und umzusetzen.

Schließlich brachten selbst nominelle Fortschritte erhebliche Risiken für den Übergangsprozess mit sich. Der Subventionsabbau im Rahmen der Wirtschaftsreformen ging mit enormen Preissteigerungen für Güter des täglichen Bedarfs und nachhaltigen Protesten einher. 2020 hatte Sudan laut IWF die zweithöchste Inflationsrate weltweit. Während Hamdok vom Militär kontrollierte Unternehmen unter zivile Kontrolle bringen wollte, drohte De-Facto-Staatschef General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan im August unverhohlen mit einem erneuten Putsch.

Abgetrotzte Erfolge

Angesichts dieser komplexen Lage sind die Erfolge der sudanesischen Regierung nicht zu verachten. Am 3. Oktober 2020 unterzeichnete sie das Juba Peace Agreement mit einer Reihe von bewaffneten Gruppen. Die Finanzierung und Umsetzung vieler Mechanismen des Friedensabkommens sind noch unklar. Seine Auswirkungen sind jedoch bereits heute deutlich erkennbar. Anfang Februar 2021 berief Premierminister Hamdok ein neues, „politisches“ Kabinett, dem auch sieben Minister aus den Unterzeichnergruppen angehören. Das Friedensabkommen verlängerte zudem den Übergangsprozess um rund 13 Monate. Er soll jetzt erst mit Wahlen Anfang 2024 enden.

Das neue Kabinett einigte sich sogleich auf die Abwertung des sudanesischen Pfundes. Dies war eine entscheidende Voraussetzung dafür, dass internationale Hilfsgelder fließen und der Entschuldungsprozess vorangehen konnten. So konnte die Regierung zusammen mit ihren internationalen Partnern auch das „Sudan Family Support Programme“ ins Werk setzen: Ein monatlicher Betrag von umgerechnet fünf Dollar pro Person soll die Auswirkungen der Preissteigerungen für einen Großteil der Bevölkerung abfedern.

Das Cash-Programm ist Ausdruck der internationalen Unterstützung für Sudans Übergangsprozess. Premierminister Hamdok traf im Februar 2020 Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel in Berlin und bemühte sich allgemein um gute Beziehungen zu zentralen Gebern. Es war eine Strategie, die sich auszahlte: Im Juni richtete Deutschland zusammen mit dem Sudan, der EU und den UN eine virtuelle Sudan-Partnerschaftskonferenz aus, die rund 1,8 Milliarden Dollar für humanitäre Hilfe, Entwicklungszusammenarbeit und das Sudan Family Support Programme einsammelte. Im Juli 2020 begann der IWF ein zwölfmonatiges Reformprogramm, das Voraussetzung für weitere Unterstützung und Entschuldung ist. Im Dezember 2020 wiederum strichen die USA Sudan von ihrer Liste Terrorismus fördernder Länder, eine lang erwartete Entscheidung, die sudanesische Banken wieder Zugang zum internationalen Finanznetzwerk gibt.

Revolutionsziele bleiben Baustellen

Die Liste der ausstehenden Reformen in Sudan bleibt lang. Nach Abschluss der Friedensverhandlungen und Ernennung des neuen Kabinetts fehlt weiter die Einberufung des Übergangsparlaments. Dieses könnte dazu beitragen, mehr Transparenz herzustellen und weitere gesellschaftliche Gruppen an der Transition zu beteiligen. Noch fehlen auch Friedensabkommen mit den zwei wichtigsten bewaffneten Gruppen Sudans, die das Juba Peace Agreement nicht unterzeichnet haben.

Die Regierung wird jetzt unter Beweis stellen müssen, dass sie für Sicherheit und Wohlstand gerade auch in den lange benachteiligten Regionen Sudans, etwa in Darfur, sorgen kann. Bisher ist ihr das nur unvollkommen gelungen: Mit Verweis auf eigene Kapazitäten hatte sie sich für den Abzug der AU-UN-Friedensmission UNAMID zum 31. Dezember 2020 stark gemacht. Doch nur wenige Wochen später starben über 200 Menschen bei bewaffneten Auseinandersetzungen.

2018/19 waren die Menschen für „Freiheit, Frieden und Gerechtigkeit“ auf die Straße gegangen. Der Weg dorthin wird weiterhin steinig und alles andere als gerade sein.

Zwar arbeitet Sudan jetzt mit dem internationalen Strafgerichtshof in Den Haag zusammen und Ex-Präsident al-Bashir sitzt rechtskräftig verurteilt in Khartum in Haft. Auf den Abschluss von weiteren Verfahren zur Aufarbeitung von Menschenrechtsverletzungen warten viele Menschen in Sudan aber weiterhin. Eine umfassende Reform des Sicherheitssektors sowie eine Neuordnung der verfassungsmäßigen Ordnung stehen ebenfalls noch aus.

What comes after the revolution?

Two years after the overthrow of al-Bashir, Sudan’s political transition is still extremely volatile — and needs more targeted international support

This text was published by IPG Journal on 9 April 2021.

By Philipp C. Jahn and Gerrit Kurtz

11 April 2019 was a day of great emotion in Khartoum. At noon, the then-Vice President Ibn Auf announced the arrest of President Omar al-Bashir. The residents of Khartoum celebrated the end of his 30-year rule by holding a sit-in in front of the military headquarters.

In the evening, however, the mood shifted when the putschist military council announced two years of military rule. The protests continued. The sit-in grew into a tent city until it was forcibly evicted on 3 June. Only then did the military and the representatives of the protest movement agree on a civilian-military transitional government.

Two years after the overthrow of al-Bashir, the question of Sudan’s political system is still as acute as back then. So far, the interim government, led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, has undertaken reforms in three areas: economy, peace and democracy.

A world of no alternatives

Hamdok’s first government after the revolution was dominated by technocrats from international financial institutions. Under their leadership, Sudan achieved some important preliminary successes.

The US removed Sudan from its list of states sponsoring terrorism. The World Bank organised a trust fund into which international donors could deposit aid payments to cut down government subsidies. The International Monetary Fund began a structured advisory programme. All of these were steps to reduce Sudan’s extremely high debt, which Bashir had amassed to stay in power. Sudan was required to reduce its debt with international financial institutions before they could provide the government with new funds. Without this budget support, the Sudanese state would face bankruptcy.

However, in the short term the economic reforms have hit the people of Sudan hard. The government cut high subsidies for diesel and petrol and devalued the Sudanese pound against the US dollar by almost 700 per cent. The prices for everyday goods skyrocketed.

Since its independence, Sudan has seen several cycles of democratic rule, military coup, and revolution.

Moreover, the economic reform process is taking place with little public participation. A national economic conference had to be postponed because of the impending Covid-19 pandemic. When it took place six months later, civil society participants were left with the feeling that their only choice was to consent to the reform programme agreed with the IMF. Protests were directed against the rapid removal of subsidies and demanded greater financial contributions from the security forces, which were heavily involved in the economy. Without external funding, however, the government had no alternative but to cut subsidies.

An ambiguous peace agreement

At the beginning of October 2020, a number of rebel groups and the government signed the Juba Peace Agreement, which has had an ambiguous effect on Sudan’s transition process so far. On the one hand, with its implementation, representatives of long-standing rebel groups have now become part of the transitional government. The cabinet, newly appointed by Prime Minister Hamdok in February 2021, is now considered significantly more ‘political’, as it now also includes prominent representatives of political parties.

On the other hand, the price for the peace agreement can’t be underestimanted, especially since it currently contributes little to make the peripheral regions in the west, east and south of Sudan more secure. The deal resets the clock of the 39-month transition process back to zero. It’s now expected to end early 2024, when an elected government is supposed to take over. The government estimates the peace deal will cost $7.5bn over the next ten years. Because they no longer had their own troops in Sudan, groups of signatories recruited to such an extent that the responsible UN sanctions committee felt compelled to admonish them publicly.

At the same time, some key groups are not yet part of the peace agreement: the groups that are still involved in violence in Darfur, as well as the SPLM-North group led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, which has the most armed fighters any Sudanese rebel group. Al-Hilu signed a declaration of principles with the government in late March. However, a full peace agreement will continue to cost time and money.

An authoritarian backlash remains possible

Despite their shortcomings, international actors as well as the transitional government regard the reforms in the areas of economy and peace as contributions to democratic development. The reason lies in the history of Sudan.

Since its independence, Sudan has seen several cycles of democratic rule, military coup, and revolution. Clear parallels to the current transition period were seen in the last period of democratic rule in the late 1980s under the leadership of the Umma Party. The civilian government inherited a massive economic crisis from the military rule of Jafar an-Numairi, which was accompanied by import difficulties, productivity losses, food shortages and protests. Civil war raged in many parts of the country. Omer al-Bashir used the instability as a pretext for his coup on 30 June 1989.

A developmental state, on the other hand, could be an attractive offer from the Sudanese elite to the starving population, but also the international donor community.

In other words, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that there will again be a democratic regime after the economic and peace reforms. In fact, from a regional perspective, this even appears to be unlikely.

In today’s political discussions in Sudan, two models of authoritarian rule from its immediate neighbourhood are being repeatedly brought up. The rapid failure of the Egyptian revolution and the elected government of Mohammed Morsi serves as a chilling example of a renewed path to military dictatorship. Some politicians consider the Ethiopian model of a developmental state to be more attractive. The indeed impressive economic growth in Ethiopia over the past three decades has taken place with a de facto one-party government with little room for political opposition.

Both models – a military dictatorship and an authoritarian developmental state – are possible pathways in Sudan today. In the summer of 2020, the head of state, General Abdelrahman Burhan, already threatened that the military could take over the business of governing altogether. After all, both Burhan and protesters blamed the continued economic crisis primarily on the Hamdok-led cabinet. However, the military would also be dependent on a successful debt relief process and access to international financial markets.

A developmental state, on the other hand, could be an attractive offer from the Sudanese elite to the starving population, but also the international donor community. It could be accompanied by political stability and economic growth as a result of good cooperation with the international financial institutions. Prime Minister Hamdok, who is familiar with the Ethiopian model from his time at the UN in Addis Ababa, has already brought a democratic developmental state into play.

The transformation needs an inclusive political process

Economic reforms and a peace process along will not move Sudan toward becoming a democratic developmental state. As Volker Perthes, the head of the UN political mission in Sudan (UNITAMS), repeatedly said, this will require an inclusive political process. The transitional government and its democratically minded international partners can provide incentives to facilitate it.

Participation, dialogue and political organisation cannot be limited to negotiating access to institutions within elites. Purely technical and financial support for elections, for which the EU has already reserved €350 million, is not enough. Elections have also taken place in Sudan before.

For a stable and legitimate government to emerge from the elections, there needs to be properly functioning competition among political parties. One lesson from Egypt was that a relatively short transition process privileges whichever political (opposition) force was best organised before the change in power. In Egypt, this was the Muslim Brotherhood; in Sudan it probably applies to the Umma Party and the Communist Party.

What the Sudanese social order should look like can and must only be determined by the Sudanese themselves.

The transitional government could set up a state-funded but independently controlled mechanism to strengthen the development of political parties. Funding for this mechanism could come, for example, from the profits of enterprises that the Ministry of Finance will take over from the security forces during the transition, or from Sudan’s established business families.

These subsidies for political parties could provide an incentive to strengthen intra-party democracy, empower hitherto underrepresented social groups (especially women), broaden the membership base, make party donations more transparent, and promote alliances among the roughly 100 small and micro parties. International actors could support training courses and projects for self-organisation and participation down to the constituency level. After the elections, the new government could transform the mechanism into a permanent form of democratically secured party funding.

Democratisation does not take place overnight

Despite all the justified enthusiasm for the innovative strength and perseverance of the revolutionary movement in Sudan, one should not harbour any illusions: the democratic development and the associated change in the political culture in Sudan will take at least a generation. The ethnic, tribal, religious and regional identity will remain an important political marker for the foreseeable future, especially for previously marginalised segments of the population.

In the short run, elections may even lead to patronage networks and identity politics becoming more important. Parties could degenerate into mere voting machines that help elites secure their power instead of enabling broad political participation. Therefore, a well-organised protest movement will continue to be necessary to fight for a progressive, egalitarian social order.

What the Sudanese social order should look like can and must only be determined by the Sudanese themselves. International support for the Sudanese-led and designed transition process should at least be complementary to a democratic transformation. Incentives for participation, dialogue and debate need to be essential components of international cooperation with Sudan.

Philipp C. Jahn manages the country office of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Khartoum, Sudan. Gerrit Kurtz is research fellow for crisis prevention and diplomacy in Africa at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) in Berlin.

How the New UN Mission in Sudan can succeed

This text first appeared on the Global Observatory of the International Peace Institute on 25 August 2020. It was written by Philipp Jahn, Gerrit Kurtz, and Peter Schumann.

After complex negotiations, the United Nations Security Council established the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS) on June 3, 2020, asking Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to start planning the mission so that it can begin operations no later than the beginning of 2021. The special political mission (SPM) has four mandated tasks: supporting the democratic transition, the peace process, peacebuilding, and the mobilization of aid.

The polarized political landscape in Sudan has already affected the planning process. After the Sudanese government (as well as China and Russia) blocked the secretary-general’s initial suggestion for the mission head, and disagreements continued on the future role of the UN-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), the existing peace operation in Darfur, UNITAMS has found itself on thin ice before even starting to work.

A Fragile Transition Process

Sudan’s internal competition for power will be an essential challenge for UNITAMS. As with any UN peace operation, the mission will need to work closely with the incumbent government, but also engage with civil society organizations, security forces, and armed groups—including those opposed to the government. However, the power-sharing coalition is polarized, its constituent parts are fragmented, and its legitimacy is thin. The constitutional declaration, which the Transitional Military Council and the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) signed in August 2019, is the binding foundation for the transition process, and includes tasks such as a comprehensive peace agreement with Sudan’s armed groups and wide-ranging economic reforms.

In principle, UNITAMS should assist and support the transitional authorities in these tasks. But that is not straightforward. While a fragmented political landscape is nothing unusual for a mission setting, Sudan’s main political forces represent competing political systems, each with their external backing. They range from, first, members of the former Islamist regime, whose adherents have frequently launched protests against the transitional authorities and retain sympathies from Turkey and Qatar. Second, the Sudanese Armed Forces, the Rapid Support Forces, special police, and internal security services, represent a model of military authoritarianism as in Egypt, on which they count as their regional ally together with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Finally, the civilian cabinet led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) alliance and other political parties are proponents of a democratic system, with support from the European Union, the AU, and Ethiopia.

Hamdok’s cabinet, UNITAMS’ main interlocutor, is increasingly squeezed between internal fragmentation of the parties nominally supporting it, revisionist protests from the Islamist camp, and domestic expectations to improve the dire economic situation. For example, Sadiq al-Mahdi from the National Umma Party, who led Sudan’s last democratic government in the late 1980s and had supported the civilian government before, reached out to the military and security forces to form a “patriotic alliance” against Hamdok. The planned inclusion of representatives of armed groups in the government’s transitional institutions as part of an impending peace agreement is likely to complicate this picture further.

The UN and Local Ownership

Implementing strong local ownership is a structural challenge for UN peace operations, especially for an integrated mission like UNITAMS, which is meant to carry out relevant functions of the UN Country Team. Peace operations, under the overall guidance of the UN Security Council and the UN secretary-general, have more leeway in implementing their mandate than UN agencies, funds, and programs, which rely on the host government’s consent for every project that they devise and implement. The close role of state authorities in planning and reviewing UN development and peacebuilding projects fosters their ownership though, whereas peace operations often remain tied to a top-down approach with national ownership at a much more abstract level, despite their efforts to consult communities and survey local perceptions. In the past, straying from the narrow line dictated by Sudan’s regime has often resulted in the expulsion of UN officials.

In Sudan, the UN cannot count on the government alone. Dominated by external advisors and (former) international officials, Prime Minister Hamdok’s government is hamstrung by the extremely low capacity of public administration. For example, the transitional government struggles to develop project proposals at the level of detail requested by donors and ensure efficient implementation of transition objectives. In early July, Hamdok appointed  a 15-member-committee to manage negotiations with UNITAMS. While the body is largely civilian (except one member representing military intelligence), it does not involve members of the FFC or other civil society organizations.

From countless examples of international interventionism, we know today that external actors cannot impose a framework on a society to resolve a conflict, if the fundamental causes of polarization and conflict remain. That was the experience of the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS) in 2015, which collapsed less than a year after the parties signed it under heavy regional and international pressure. UNAMID, for its part, came into being because of such international pressure, and was hampered to implement its mandate effectively by the intransigent government of President Omar al-Bashir, and ended up serving the political objectives of the past regime.

An Adaptive Approach

If UNITAMS is to avoid the fate of those peace efforts, it needs to adopt an adaptive approach. This peacebuilding approach recognizes that, as Cedric de Coning writes, “social systems are highly dynamic, non-linear and emergent.” It chimes well with Prime Minister Hamdok’s frequent insistence that Sudan’s transition process is “messy and non-linear.” An adaptive peacebuilding strategy takes a highly participatory approach, experiments with different options, and pays close attention to feedback from the local political environment, reviewing and adjusting its programming frequently in response to that feedback. Specifically, UNITAMS should heed four considerations.

First, in planning and implementing the mission, UN officials should account for the rapidly evolving situation and relatively short scheduled lifespan of the mission tracking the (now probably four-year) transition period. Instead of rigid budgets and work plans common in a UN peace operation, as much authority for recruitment, coordination, and project design should be delegated to the country-level as possible. Only with enough flexibility and Sudanese participation will the mission be able to respond to evolving dynamics and local needs. Specifically, the mission should institutionalize a regular advisory and monitoring mechanism, not just with the government’s committee, but with the FFC and civil society organizations as well. In doing so, the UN can build on its engagement with those groups since the start of the revolution in 2019. Knowledge management experts should ensure a smooth transition to the UN Country Team, while the mission should employ political and civil affairs officers with relevant regional and country expertise.

Second, UNITAMS should foster resilience, i.e., the ability to withstand and manage shocks to the transition process. There are likely going to be further delays and setbacks in the transition process, even a complete take-over by the security sector cannot be ruled out. UNITAMS has the mandate to support institution-building through providing technical expertise and advise for the constitutional process and independent commissions. As many actors are already present in this field, UNITAMS must avoid contributing to donor competition for attractive lighthouse projects. It should concentrate on strengthening the ability of the civilian authorities to exert control over the security sector and its economic activities, as the transitional government has planned. This will require the mission to put parliamentarians and political parties at the center of their stakeholder engagement. Only they can ensure functional civilian oversight of the security sector. The Sudanese private sector will be needed to restructure the assets of the security sector.

Third, UNITAMS should contribute to ensuring international coherence, in particular regarding the UN’s activities in Sudan and international financing of the transition. Extending basic services and supplies to the whole population is a key element of the transition’s success. More donor funds are expected to flow into Sudan in the wake of the Sudan Berlin Conference, where attendants pledged around 1.8 billion dollars (plus up to a further 400 million dollars in a pre-arrears clearance grant from the World Bank) on June 25, 2020. Ensuring a consistent follow-up process that will see further partnership conferences and coordination of pledges as well as operational activities in a way that considers the nexus between humanitarian and development activities in addition to peacebuilding will be crucial for UNITAMS.

As an integrated mission, some tasks that UNITAMS undertakes will continue after it is scheduled to leave Sudan with the completion of democratic elections, such as the reform of the civil service and public administration. As these developmental tasks will take many years, UNITAMS should leave the building of these vital state capacities to those organizations that are going to stay in Sudan for the long run, and concentrate on overall strategic coordination and ensure peace and stability of the transition process itself. Structurally, the existing donor coordination mechanisms supported by the UN Country Team can ensure Sudanese ownership more effectively than a peace operation. Given the remaining threats to civilians in Darfur and elsewhere, the Security Council may decide to extend UNAMID beyond December 2020. For UNITAMS, this would mean that it would have to revisit its mission plan and even raison d’être.

Finally, the mission should facilitate the flow of information and promote transparency regarding its own activities and those of development partners and government authorities. Sudan is swirling with rumors and speculation, including about the work of international actors. With offices around the country, logistical capacities, and the protection of a status-of-forces agreement, the mission should empower marginalized voices through dialogue processes, local conflict management, and reconciliation, and encourage communication between Sudan’s federal states and Khartoum.

UNITAMS can provide a platform for sharing information and can facilitate communication beyond its regular reporting to the UN Security Council, including public information efforts in Sudan. This includes managing expectations what a political mission can and cannot deliver, especially when it comes to protection of civilians and accountability. Establishing such processes could also help shine a light on the often-unclear support of Sudan’s non-traditional donors, including from the Gulf.

Becoming a Central Focal Point

The success of UNITAMS hinges on the ability and capacity of mission leadership and staff to provide substantive technical professional inputs to the transition process otherwise not available to Sudanese institutions, and to ensure strong Sudanese ownership of the mission. Adopting a flexible, adaptive approach will be difficult for a UN system full of inertia. Given the right policies, resources, leadership, and political backing, the mission still has the chance to become a focal point for the international support to Sudan’s transition.

Philipp Jahn heads the office of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Khartoum. Gerrit Kurtz is research fellow for crisis prevention and diplomacy in Africa at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) in Berlin. Peter Schumann is a former UN official, who served as Acting Deputy Joint Special Representative with UNAMID in 2017/18.

An International Partnership for Sudan’s Transition

Mobilizing Support, Preventing Instability

Video frame from the Sudan Partnership Conference held online on 25 June 2020.

This DGAP Policy Brief was published on 26 June 2020.

Germany has helped lead efforts to mobilize international support for Sudan’s transition process since President al-Bashir was ousted last year. To be successful, Germany and its partners must deliver on their promises to support the transitional government’s economic reforms with substantial aid. They should keep Sudan’s diverse partners aligned while broadening their outreach. Sudan is thus a test case for how much political capital Germany will spend on its stated objective of conflict prevention

Key Facts

Although Sudan’s transition process is a tremendous opportunity for sustainable peace and long-term democratic transformation, the collapse of the transitional government – resulting in a return to military rule and large-scale political violence – remains possible.
Currently, Sudan’s economic crisis represents the greatest danger to the transition process. Grievances resulting from spiraling inflation and increasing food insecurity undermine the domestic legitimacy of the transitional authorities.
Sudan’s transitional government has recently initiated important economic reforms, including a cash-transfer system to offset macroeconomic adjustments. Donors have long requested such groundwork before they mobilize further aid.
Germany should ensure that international support responds to the demands of Sudan’s vibrant civil society and is based on the expectation that the civil-military coalition government sticks to the 2019 constitutional declaration.
Read the full policy brief on this link.

Steinmeier visits Khartoum. Seizing the Opportunity for Sudan’s Transition

Sudan’s transition process offers chances for conflict prevention and stabilization – core objectives of Germany’s foreign policy in Africa. The international attention surrounding a visit by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier to Khartoum in late February 2020 gives the civilian side of Sudan’s transitional government a golden opportunity to push forward difficult reforms. Germany should support these efforts and the transition process through diplomacy, mediation, and development cooperation.

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, (c) https://twitter.com/SudanPMHamdok/status/1232985062297260032?s=20.

This text was published as DGAP commentary on 25 February 2020.

On February 27 and 28, 2020, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier will visit Khartoum, the capital of the Republic of Sudan. It will be the first such trip by a German president since 1985. Steinmeier will also be one of the most senior leaders to visit the city at the confluence of the White and Blue Nile since the start of the Sudanese revolution in December 2018. While Steinmeier’s role is largely ceremonial, his visit reflects intense diplomatic engagement by the German government in Sudan’s transition process.

A sustained partnership presents opportunities for both countries. The civilian side of the Sudanese transitional government needs principled international support as leverage in its relations with the country’s security forces and to deliver on its promises to improve the lives of its population. Germany – based on its own historical and contemporary experience with transition processes – can help provide that support. For Germany, leadership on Sudan is a chance to prove how seriously it takes its recent commitment to facilitating conflict prevention, stabilization, and peace promotion in its foreign policy.

The Civil-Military Government Needs Legitimacy

Since August 2019, a civil-military transitional government has ruled Sudan. So far, cooperation between the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), the broad civilian coalition supporting the government, and the country’s security forces seems to be working – as both sides continue to emphasize. The partnership works because both sides need each other. On the one hand, the security forces – which include not only the Sudanese Armed Forces, but also the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) headed by General Mohammed Hamdan Daglo, also known as Hemeti – control large swathes of the economy, possess excellent relations with important Arab countries, and play a leading role in the negotiations with armed groups. On the other hand, though, they lack exactly what Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, his cabinet, and the FFC bring to the table. The government needs the support of the unions, professional associations, political parties, and social movements that make up the civilian revolutionary coalition for domestic legitimacy. Since many Western governments shun Hemiti and the RSF, the same holds true internationally. Indeed, opposition parties in Germany’s legislature, the Bundestag, have called on the federal government to ensure that renewed development cooperation would not entail the training of Sudanese security forces.

Sudan’s transformation will require continued pressure from the streets and international diplomacy

The cooperation between the FFC and security forces is not, however, as stable as it seems. Events in recent weeks show that threats to the partnership can emerge at anytime. On February 19, 2020, people took to the streets to protest the dismissal of junior military officers who had joined the revolution early on. The police in Khartoum, whose chief was appointed by the government of former President Omar al-Bashir, cracked down on the demonstration with tear gas and batons, injuring 53 people in the process. In reaction, Prime Minister Hamdok created a commission of inquiry headed by the attorney general.

Such incidents risk derailing the foundation of civil-military cooperation in the transitional government. People in Khartoum are eagerly awaiting the results of another commission of inquiry set up to investigate the violent crackdown on a sit-in held on June 3, 2019, in which more than 120 people were killed and more than 900 injured. While the RSF is widely believed to have been responsible for this carnage, it remains unclear whether the civilian government will have the strength to hold senior RSF leaders accountable when the commission names them in its report.

Difficult Decisions Lie Ahead

Trade-offs and painful decisions are a natural part of any democratic process of transition – especially after thirty years of dictatorship. Despite Sudan’s “revolutionary” narrative, many parts of its old system and members of its former government remain in place. The transformation of the country’s political, economic, and social spheres will require continued pressure from the streets and international diplomacy.

Prime Minister Hamdok can point to domestic and international expectations in his daily negotiations with the security forces. His government has already shown its willingness to address contentious issues. In November 2019, it dissolved former President Bashir’s National Congress Party and repealed his government’s public order law, which had severely restricted the role of women in public life. In February 2020, the government announced its willingness to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, which has indicted Bashir and four other former officials for atrocities in Darfur.

More tough decisions await. The government has promised to improve the education, health care, and livelihoods of ordinary Sudanese. In 2019,three million children in Sudan were not in school, for example. Today, most people in Khartoum have to wait for 24 hours at petrol stations to access heavily subsidized fuel and queue in bakeries for bread made from subsidized wheat. International donors have indicated their willingness to support Sudan’s economic development, but they expect more detailed proposals for macroeconomic reforms – including the outline of a social safety net to cushion the gradual lifting of such expensive subsidies. The government postponed a decision on a complete budget until a national economic conference in March 2020 because it has not yet been able to agree on the question of subsidies with the FFC, which demands that they remain in place for now while the government reduces military expenditure and military control of the economy instead.

An Approach Guided by Respect and Empathy

Steinmeier’s visit to Khartoum is the climax of a month of extraordinary German-Sudanese interaction. On February 13, 2020, the Bundestag passed a resolution asking the German government to restart bilateral development cooperation with Sudan. Gerd Müller, federal minister for economic cooperation and development, who had been in Khartoum the week before, announcedan initial package of 80 million euro for this year with possible focus on vocational training, agriculture, energy, and good governance.

The timing was perfect. A mere twenty-four hours later, Prime Minister Hamdok met German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin. At a joint press appearance following their meeting, both leaders emphasized this pivotal moment for further reforms in the country at the wider Horn of Arica. Merkel pledged to “do everything to use this historical window of opportunity.” Hamdok spoke of an “emerging success story” and how a successful transition in Sudan could have a “spillover effect in the entire region.”

Germany can also bring its own historical experience to bear on its relationship with Sudan. Both German and Sudanese leaders have drawn analogies between the peaceful revolution of 1989 in the German Democratic Republic and the Sudanese uprising three decades later. Clearly, the two processes differ in important ways. Still, Germans are aware of the travails associated with accounting for state crimes, healing a divided society, and ensuring inclusive economic recovery. They increasingly recognize that mistakes were made in their own process of reunification and that difficulties remain. If the German government can call upon this experience in its dealings with Sudan’s transition process, it can interact with the country on slightly more equal footing than other international partners. This approach should also guide President Steinmeier’s interactions with his Sudanese interlocutors: Germany doesn’t have all the answers, but it has some experience with asking the right questions in dealing with an authoritarian past.

What Germany Can Contribute

Germany can contribute to Sudan’s transition process in three areas: diplomacy, mediation, and development cooperation. Diplomatically, the German government played an important behind-the-scenes role in rallying international stakeholders behind common objectives – including Gulf countries that initially supported a military takeover in April 2019. This group became the “Friends of Sudan,” the main mechanism for coordinating international support, which meets every two months under a rotating chair to discuss the Sudanese government’s progress and how to respond. In September 2019, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas was the first foreign official to visit Khartoum after Prime Minister Hamdok had been sworn in. It will now fall to German and British diplomats in the UN Security Council to draft the mandate for a follow-up mission to the United Nations-African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), which is scheduled to withdraw by the end of October 2020.

Feeding into this high-level diplomacy is Berlin’s support of Sudan with mediation. In the last years of Bashir’s government, Germany already backed a national dialogue and a mediation process among armed groups from Darfur. This yielded an agreement among the armed groups involved just days before the first major anti-government protests began in December 2018 in Atbara, a key industrial city in northeastern Sudan. When events started moving fast on the ground, Berlin already had an established list of countries with which it had worked on monitoring the mediation process to turn to for additional support. In fact, Germany continues to monitor the current peace negotiations in Juba, South Sudan’s capital. It has also offered to increase its mediation support again when needed.

In its bilateral discussions with Sudan on development cooperation, Germany will need to identify projects that can deliver quick results to the population at large – in the areas of agriculture and economic livelihoods, for example. The German government should ensure that international assistance is fully coordinated with Sudan’s major development partners. The administrative capacities of the country’s ministries are still miniscule, making it difficult for Sudan to develop detailed proposals for macroeconomic reform to achieve debt relief and economic transformation. Germany’s approach to these negotiations should be guided by creativity, flexibility, and empathy for the challenges of a transitional government.

Courage and Persistence Bring Rewards

If Germany is serious about its commitment to conflict prevention and stabilization in its foreign policy, it needs to sustain its political attention to Sudan’s transition process. As it knows all too well from its own history, confronting and overcoming the legacy of authoritarianism takes persistence. The courage of the Sudanese people in the face of horrific violence and repression is a great asset in this struggle. Diplomats have been amazed at the professionalism and organization of Sudan’s revolutionary movements. As President Steinmeier will see for himself in Khartoum, Germany and Sudan can both benefit from learning each other’s stories.

Ausdauernde, aber sanfte Diplomatie nötig

In vielen Staaten Afrikas weht gerade ein Wind der Veränderung. Deutschland sollte die Übergangsprozesse unterstützen.

Dieser Text erschien am 19. August 2019 als Gastbeitrag in der Frankfurter Rundschau.

Es weht ein neuer Wind in den Regierungsgebäuden wichtiger afrikanischer Länder. Die Einigung auf eine Übergangsregierung im Sudan Anfang Juli ist nur das jüngste Beispiel für Regierungswechsel in scheinbar erstarrten Regimen. Auch Äthiopien, Algerien, Kongo, Angola und Simbabwe erleben politischen Wandel in den letzten Jahren. Diese Prozesse haben regionale Ausstrahlungswirkung, eint jedoch auch eine anhaltende Rolle von Herrschaftseliten, eine große Rolle des Sicherheitsapparats und der fragile Charakter der Veränderungen. Internationale Diplomatie muss einen Weg finden, sowohl die erneute Konsolidierung autoritärer Herrschaft als auch Bürgerkrieg und Massengewalt zu verhindern. Dazu sollte die Bundesregierung die Kräfte des friedlichen Wandels umsichtig unterstützen.

Die Regierungswechsel waren stets auch Versuche der herrschenden Elite, angesichts wachsender Demonstrationen und Unzufriedenheit im Land die Proteste zu besänftigen. Saubere Schnitte mit der Vergangenheit waren es nicht. Angesichts der engen Verbindung von wirtschaftlichen und politischen Interessen war dies keine Überraschung: es gibt viel zu verlieren für all diejenigen, die von den bisherigen Verhältnissen profitiert haben.

Gleichzeitig ist die Beteiligung existierender Machteliten auch eine Chance für den Übergangsprozess. Sie erlaubt mögliche Friedensstörer zumindest anfangs einzubinden. Wenn Reformfiguren dem Status Quo entspringen, können sie auf existierende Netzwerke zur Umsetzung ihrer Ideen zurückgreifen. Premierminister Abyi Ahmed hat beispielsweise angefangen, weitgehende demokratische Reformen in Äthiopien umzusetzen. Medien- und Versammlungsfreiheit sind gewachsen, tausende politische Gefangen wurden frei gelassen, und die Privatisierung staatlicher Monopole hat begonnen. Letztes Jahr schloss Äthiopien Frieden mit Eritrea und eröffnete damit die Hoffnung, dass auch dort die Jahrzehnte der Isolation und Militarisierung zu Ende gehen könnten.

Doch die schnellen Reformen bringen auch die inneren Spannungen Äthiopiens zu Tage. 2018 wurden im Land fast drei Millionen Menschen durch gewaltsame Auseinandersetzungen vertrieben; so viele wie in keinem anderen Land. Ende Juni versuchten staatliche Sicherheitskräfte, die Regierung zu stürzen und töteten dabei unter anderem den Armeechef. Währenddessen drohen die Übergänge in Algerien und Simbabwe in alte Muster zurückzufallen, bevor sie richtig begonnen haben.

Für Deutschland und Europa sind diese Entwicklungen von großer Bedeutung. Äthiopien und die Demokratische Republik Kongo gehören zu den größten Empfängerländern von deutscher Entwicklungszusammenarbeit in Afrika. Äthiopien und Algerien haben sich in den vergangenen Jahren als wichtige Friedensvermittler hervorgetan, im Sudan und Südsudan bzw. in Mali. Wenn die Bundesregierung die Ziele der afrikapolitischen Leitlinien, welche sie dieses Jahr neu fasste, umsetzen will, müssen diese Übergangsprozesse friedlich verlaufen und nachhaltig inklusive Herrschaft garantieren.

Die Diplomatie steht jedoch vor schwierigen Herausforderungen. Zwei andere Übergangsprozesse der letzten Jahre zeigen, wie internationaler Einfluss nicht enden sollte: in Ägypten konnte sich das Militär mit Präsident al-Sisi an der Spitze behaupten, ohne dass es langfristige Einbußen der US-Militärhilfe hinnehmen musste. In Libyen zerfiel der Staat nach der international forcierten Entmachtung Gaddafis im Streit bewaffneter Gruppen.

Deutsche Diplomatie sollte also auf glaubwürdige Reformschritte drängen und die Erwartungen auch an konstruktive Regierungen wie die von Abyi Ahmed in Äthiopien nicht aus falscher Rücksichtnahme senken. Gewaltakte wie das Massaker der friedlichen Demonstranten am 3. Juni in Khartum müssen aufgeklärt werden. Die Bundesregierung sollte innerhalb der Staaten die Akteure unterstützen, die für einen gesellschaftlichen Wandel stehen. Entsprechend sollten deutsche Diplomaten bei ihren Vermittlungsbemühungen im Sudan und anderswo auch zivilgesellschaftliche Bewegungen wie die Sudanese Professionals Association involvieren. Gleichzeitig sollten sie weiterhin regionale Prozesse wie die Mediation der Afrikanischen Union im Sudan unterstützen. Um ein glaubwürdiges Auftreten zu ermöglichen, muss sich die Regierung auch noch stärker um einen kohärenten Ansatz zwischen den Ressorts und mit den europäischen Partnern bemühen.

Die Bevölkerungen im Sudan, Algerien und anderen Ländern haben gezeigt, dass sie nicht länger auf langfristige Reformversprechen warten wollen. Pusten wir Wind in ihre Segel.