Cameron Hudson: Sudan is now on a knife's edge, the future of the revolution and the whole country is in the balance.
The United States should not be seen as supporting one political faction over another.
What is going on is a struggle between the modern forces of change and the forces of the old regime, and both sides are supported from the outside.
Cameron Hudson, a former American diplomat and former White House official, under President George W. Bush, and a senior researcher at the Atlantic Council, one of the important think tanks in the United States, non-partisan influential in decision-making, with the complexity of the conflict in the country, conducted with him ( Al-Hadathah) was interviewed to get his opinion about what is happening, and he is the researcher and interested in the Sudanese issue.
The interview was conducted by: Omar Al-Farouq
Since the failure of the coup attempt that took place in Khartoum, on the twenty-first of last September, it seems that Sudan is facing a very serious political crisis, in light of this, how do you view the political scene in the country?
Sudan is now on a knife edge. The future of the revolution, and indeed the whole country, is in the balance. What is going on is a conflict between the modern forces of change and the forces of the old regime, and both sides receive support from outside - from international actors who seek to shape, influence and manipulate the outcomes of the revolution, in proportion to their interests and not the interests of the Sudanese people.
Do you think that the government of Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok will be able to move the train of revolution on the right path?
- I do not know. But it is remarkable that the forces of change are very clear and transparent in their demands and vision. The prime minister's speech on national television last Friday was very clear, and the demands of the protesters in the streets last weekend were very clear. But the army, the security and intelligence forces, and the Islamic forces, all operate in the shadows. They say one thing in public, and do another in private. They can't win the battle of ideas, so they work in the shadows to survive, and they use fake news and information to help them with that, but I think in the end people will see the truth.
How can the United States intervene after allies of the military component demanded the dissolution of the government, and allow them to sit near the Republican Palace in Khartoum?
The United States must remain on the side of the Sudanese people. Hamdok was warned, if he sided with the army and dissolved the cabinet, he would lose US support. The United States should not be seen as supporting one political faction over another. But we can choose who we will take the ideological battle with. In this fight, the United States stands on the side of civilian rule and democracy. This is what the vast majority of Sudanese want.
In light of these serious developments, can we say that the transitional period in Sudan is now in real danger?
Moving was always in danger. He was in danger from the start. None of these contending forces were new to the scene, they had been there since the beginning of the transitional period. However, their differences were public. I would say, the transition in Sudan is still in its infancy. In order for Sudan to resolve these basic questions about what kind of country it will be, what kind of political system it will have, and what role will the army play? Until a decision is made, Sudan will always be in transition, living under a cloud of uncertainty. In this case, no one will thrive and no one will be at peace.
Do you think there are solutions on the horizon through the efforts led by Hamdok?
- Yes, Hamdok's speech clearly said that we need an open and transparent process, not games. If we can go through this process, I think progress can be made, and there can be a place in the New Sudan for everyone.
What should the transitional members do to get out of this current crisis?
They have to go down to the people on the streets, listen to them, and use their energies and demands to push for change. The parties to the transitional process are not elected, and neither is the army. They rely on the legitimacy of the street and do not enjoy legitimacy, unless the people see it as legitimate. They must earn that trust by translating people's demands into action and results.
Can the military component force Hamdok to leave his position by placing obstacles in front of his government?
The military can get rid of Hamdok if they really want to, but that won't solve their biggest problem. The game guide they used for 30 years is no longer valid. The people on the streets are young and modern, and the army uses the tactics of the last century. You cannot depict what is in people's minds and what is in their hearts.
.