On 13 July, Cairo hosted the Sudan’s Neighboring States Summit (SNSS), attended by the presidents of Libya, Chad, Central Africa, South Sudan, Eritrea, and the prime minister of Ethiopia. The SNSS took place four months after the Sudan conflict broke out on 15 April and was meant to discuss ways to end the crisis, contain the negative effects of the conflict on neighboring countries, and ensure the stability of the region as a whole and the peaceful resolution of the crisis, towards creating a shared understanding to guarantee the preservation of the capacities and sovereignty of the Sudanese state and ensuring coordination with other international and regional tracks to resolve the crisis through the Summit’s well-defined agenda, with a significant presence from the seven neighboring countries as well as representation from the Arab League and the African Union.
In this sense, Egypt’s actions and endeavors aimed to defuse the situation in Sudan, put an end to hostilities, and protect the Sudanese people’s capacities, which have been clear since the crisis first erupted.
The Egyptian vision was embodied in a complete and long-lasting cessation of hostilities, a halt to all outside intervention in Sudan, the preservation of Sudan’s institutional and populace unity, the political resolution of the crisis, the coordination and unification of previous efforts, and the appeal to aid organizations and donors to provide the necessary assistance to neighboring countries. For Egypt, it is crucial that the crisis in Sudan be resolved for a number of reasons, including national security, the shared history of the two countries, and the significance of Egypt’s role in the reunification of other Arab countries.
Urgent Pressures to Hold the Summit
As a result of the lack of a military solution, the deteriorating humanitarian situation, the weakening economy, the shifting security landscape, the blending and expansion of the tribal dimension in the armed conflict, and the escalation of tribal violence in Darfur, the crisis in Sudan has reached a critical juncture with potentially disastrous consequences for Sudan’s immediate neighbors, including a multiplier effect of the humanitarian crises, the escalation of refugee flows, and the exacerbation of security crises, along with the rise in regional anxiety and the state of security alert and cautious anticipation of the outcome of the conflict, in the midst of the breach of successive ceasefires on both sides of the conflict and the complexity of the crisis paths. The crisis is extremely risky due to the following factors:
• Exacerbation of the Security Crisis: Due to the lack of security in border regions, where terrorist organizations thrive in these fertile grounds, there are worries about the spread of tribal conflicts in Darfur as well as about the proliferation of cross-border weapons, the movements of armed groups, and irregular migration to neighboring countries. With weapons proliferation, regional security will deteriorate, smuggling costs will rise, the illegal arms trade will expand, and there will be security liquidity risks to the stability of regional security.
• Flow of Refugees Across Borders: The number of refugees has increased since the beginning of the Sudan crisis, and the three nearby countries of Egypt, Chad, and South Sudan have each played a significant role in keeping refugees under control, followed by Ethiopia and Central Africa. South Sudan, Central Africa, Chad, and Ethiopia are all in close proximity to Sudan, making them more susceptible to the effects of the conflict there. These countries are already struggling due to political, economic, and social crises, as well as difficult humanitarian conditions. The Sudanese conflict exacerbates the impact of these crises, as Sudan is considered a focal point in its turbulent geographical location, with the arc of crises extending to South Sudan, Central Africa, Chad, and Ethiopia.
• Cross-Border Economic Repercussions: Due to its economy’s dependence on the Port Sudan oil refineries, the difficulty in establishing transportation and logistical links between the oil fields and Port Sudan, and the negative effects on oil revenues—which are essentially Juba’s only source of income—South Sudan is thought to be the country most adversely affected by the conflict. Additionally, the economies of other landlocked countries are impacted, including those of Ethiopia, Chad, and Central Africa, which rely heavily on Sudan’s Red Sea-facing ports. This caused an unprecedented increase in food commodity and raw material prices, which hindered cross-border trade and exacerbated the food crisis and hunger in these countries.
Factors Affecting the Influence of Neighboring Countries in the Sudan Crisis
Initiatives to facilitate dialogue between the warring parties in Sudan have been proposed by a wide range of states and regional and international organizations. For instance, the African Union and the IGAD organization put forth their initiative, let alone bilateral initiatives from African countries such as Egypt, South Sudan, and Chad, to cease hostilities, address the humanitarian situation with a comprehensive vision, and offer to participate in mediation. In addition, there is the Saudi-American initiative, the Jeddah Declaration of Commitment to Protect Civilians in Sudan, and IGAD’s Quartet initiative. These efforts, however, have not succeeded in stopping the shooting or bringing about a lasting ceasefire.
Confusion over how to convince the warring parties to negotiate has resulted from the proliferation of competing initiatives as neighboring countries’ responses varied between anticipation and cautious reactions. The SNSS was an earnest attempt to narrow the gap between the perspectives of the countries bordering Sudan, to find common ground on which to build a plan for ending the crisis, and to bring together and coordinate the many different initiatives that had been taken up to that point. By bringing together all of Sudan’s neighbors, without exception, the Summit may be able to put more pressure on the two parties to the conflict and bring them back to the negotiating table, which would be beneficial for stabilizing the security and humanitarian situation in Sudan, stemming the tide of refugees, and ending the scourge of war by reaching an agreement on effective measures to deal with the conflict.
The Summit made it clear that Sudan’s neighboring countries can and want to resolve the Sudanese crisis due to shared interests and problems, particularly the effects of refugees, and their inability to bear the cost of the conflict in Sudan, given the conflict’s negative effects on these countries due to the interdependence of their tribal, economic, and social relationships.
Accordingly, the ability of neighboring countries to contain the expansion of the internal conflict and find solutions to end the crisis can be summarized in three tracks: 1) the military track, which calls for a long-term cease-fire and the restoration of normalcy; 2) the political track, which seeks to defuse the situation and achieve stability; and 3) the humanitarian track, which calls for relief efforts in light of the worsening of the humanitarian crisis in Khartoum and the states of Darfur in particular.
In a nutshell, the complexity of regional interests forced Sudan’s neighboring countries to unify their vision, as demonstrated by the Cairo Summit, which also highlighted Egypt’s strong relations with all its neighbors and the extension of its role in maintaining the security and stability of neighboring countries and the region in general by presenting a comprehensive regional vision to resolve the crisis in collaboration with all parties, as well as with regional and global partners.
