The Lame Summit

The newspaper this morning... this means that the El Alamein meeting did not write a text that reflects a change in Egypt's position, but rather came to solidify it. But what about the upcoming American desire?! Spectrums, Sabah Mohamed Al-Hassan. First Spectrum: We came with the certainty of a heart that recovered its face from the darkness left in the final chapter. Thanks to the reader who has come to consider these letters their own, and who has begun to hold us accountable for absence severely, and that they do not allow it... Thanks for the honor of belonging to you. Spectrums, Sabah Mohamed Al-Hassan. The Lame Summit. Yesterday, the statement of the El Alamein summit—which was launched in Cairo at the invitation of Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and which included President Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud of the Federal Republic of Somalia, as well as army chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan—completely ignored the call to stop the war in Sudan and the necessity of restoring democratic civilian rule. It turned a blind eye to al-Burhan's isolation and limited the entire issue of the war to the necessity of confronting the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) so they would not be a parallel force to the army, dropping everything that results from the continued suffering of the people and their desire for peace. Its statement regarding Sudan read: (Supporting the unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the Republic of Sudan and its national institutions, rejecting the creation of any parallel entities, encouraging the resumption of a Sudanese-owned and led political process, supporting national institutions, and a complete rejection of any support for mercenaries). The summit did not mention the humanitarian dimension of the war, because mentioning it would mean acknowledging that the war is a catastrophe, acknowledging that the army is responsible, and perhaps opening the door to international pressure and a civilian transition. The statement confirms that it insists on its position supporting al-Burhan and continues to treat him as the 'legitimate president,' completely ignoring international demands to stop the war or for a civilian transition. This means the summit did not write a text to change Egypt's position... but rather came to solidify it. The summit took place after Ethiopia severed relations with Eritrea, expelled an Egyptian diplomat, and both countries responded in kind. These moves have caused a clear 'regional shakeup' that may shift the balance of alliances in the Horn of Africa. The decline in trust between Addis Ababa and Asmara after the end of the Tigray War created a state of anxiety among countries in the region that fear the expansion of Ethiopia's regional influence, which is making Egypt try to reposition itself regionally in light of its dispute with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). The El Alamein summit reflects a strong political implication that these countries feel the region is entering a phase of 'reshaping.' Egypt, Eritrea, Sudan, and Somalia are taking their fears and sharing their concerns under the umbrella of the summit by forming a new axis outside Addis Ababa's influence. But those looking at the summit from the window of observation find that it does not express a strong axis, but rather expresses an Egyptian attempt to change its tools for dealing with regional issues so as not to be left out of the circle, as the international community has begun to bypass the region in its view of resolving issues. This has direct repercussions on the war in Sudan; that is, Egypt's old options will become ineffective, especially after al-Burhan's international isolation, America closing its door to him, banning him from entering its territory, and opening the door to civilian forces that made a clear political breakthrough after arriving at the White House. These recent steps have a significant impact on what America will write and what lines it will draw to stop the war or to propose a truce at any time, and this will be done with Egypt's blessing or refusal. Opening the door to civilian forces—led by Abdalla Hamdok—carries a clear message from the US government, not only to the Sudanese internal scene but also to regional countries, led by Egypt and Sudan, which tried to put their hands over their eyes to ignore the civilian presence and to cut off their quest to draw a different path that does not suit their interests. However, by its recent meetings with civilian forces, America wanted to say that it does not respond to regional desires. Egypt's declining ability to exert influence through the Sudanese army, coupled with its previous marginalization of the civilian role, now makes it forced to recalculate its position regarding the losing card, 'al-Burhan.' Supporting the war has now become a costly option. The meetings between [US Special Envoy] Perriello and the Egyptian Foreign Minister point to the change America is seeking in the Egyptian approach, and they give Cairo a final chance to lift its hand from the war field in Sudan, where the equation has produced zero-sum results. The participating countries (Somalia, Eritrea) are not a strong axis, but rather an Egyptian attempt to reposition, which comes at a difficult moment. Therefore, it may not go beyond the description of being a meeting of countries feeling a state of weakness, meeting to look for a way out. Ethiopia's influence and its emergence as a power controlling the sources of the Nile, in addition to its strategic location between the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea and its extended relations with major countries, makes it appear in the near horizon to be more than just a state. Egypt is now gathering weak countries at its summit, especially at the present time; Somalia is a fragile state, Eritrea is an isolated state, and Sudan is in a war and also in international isolation. This summit is lame and cannot compete in the frantic race of international axes and alliances. Ethiopia possesses a geopolitical location that cannot be bypassed, especially since the Emirati-Ethiopian axis, while maintaining relations with the Gulf states, finds international political support. The summit may have its agenda that sets a roadmap for exiting the predicament, but it has a direct reflection on the war in Sudan, especially with an American desire to bring about a shift in Egyptian policy and its vision of the Sudan war. America will propose a truce that will be implemented with Egypt's approval or refusal... there is no difference. Regionally, the land has a direct influence on regaining influence. Abiy Ahmed's victory over the Tigray gives Ethiopia political confidence and the ability to impose its conditions and gives it a greater regional sphere of influence, whether in Somalia or on the GERD file, and even that will enable it to pressure Sudan. Concerns for such summits, which might be seen as not fitting their interests, might be ignored, and they may seek more seriously to obtain a seaport via Somaliland. Thus, the summit in its new orientation will suffer from a lack of straightness that does not enable it to restore lost influence for all participating countries compared to the supported Ethiopian influence; therefore, it does not exceed being urgent meetings to ward off the fears and risks of the new formation on the continent. Final Spectrum: #No_to_War The African Union Special Envoy for the Prevention of Genocide and Atrocities, Adama Dieng, shares with 'Spectrums' a discussion about his visit to Sudan. We had asked last week: What is behind the visit of a high-ranking official for genocide to Sudan at this time? He answered the question himself, saying: 'I am visiting Sudan for these reasons...'. Tomorrow on 'Spectrums'.