South Africa backing AU Luanda summit for Sudan conflict resolution

Come the end of this month (August) an African Union (AU) extraordinary summit in Angola will, according to South African International Relations and Co-operation Minister Ronald Lamola, put the Sudan civil war under the microscope.

In a statement on the country’s foreign policy priorities ahead of the now underway 46th Ordinary SADC (Southern African Development Community) Summit of Heads of State and Government in Durban ending on 17 August, another development he outlined was the upcoming September BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit in India.

On the Luanda, Angola, AU extraordinary summit to strengthen continental conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms, the Lamola statement had it the conflict in Sudan is more than a humanitarian catastrophe calling it “one of the biggest moral failures in our lifetime”. South Africa, he said, will use the Luanda platform as “a critical opportunity to mobilise the continent toward a structured intervention” without elaborating.

The Sudan civil war, termed by some observers including senior United Nations (UN) staffers “the war the world forgot”, has been going since April 2023, displacing an estimated 15 million people. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has it 25 million Sudanese are facing food insecurity and 19 million don’t have access to potable, safe water or sanitation.

Alongside these, what Institute for Security Studies (ISS), African Futures and Innovation Researcher Enoch Aikins calls, “visible signs of devastation”, is a development crisis. This, according to him, started before 2023 and reflects the paradox of abundant potential alongside persistent underperformance.

“Sudan has considerable natural resources, vast agricultural potential, strategic access to Red Sea shipping routes and a large, youthful population.

“These opportunities have been constrained by recurrent conflict, political instability, South Sudan’s 2011 secession, international sanctions and global shocks like COVID-19. Its location along a conflict belt stretching from the Sahel to Yemen also exposes it to regional insecurity, leading to periodic friction with two of its most consequential neighbours, Egypt and Ethiopia.

The 2023 war has deepened these constraints and reversed years of developmental gains. A quantitative assessment of the war’s costs by the UN Development Programme and ISS African Futures team depicts an economy trapped in a cycle of contraction, rising poverty and widening inequality.

“The analysis confirms that violent conflict is the single most binding constraint on Sudan’s development, directly undermining all dimensions of human development. The war has disrupted the delivery of health and education services, damaged market infrastructure and weakened production systems across agriculture, manufacturing and services.

“An already fragile development trajectory is being pushed towards systemic collapse. The study estimates that Sudan lost $6.4 billion in 2023 alone due to the conflict, equivalent to a per capita income loss of about $500, pushing seven million more people into extreme poverty.”

On turning Sudan around, Aikins postulates its future will not be decided by a single agreement or funding injection. “Rather, it will depend on whether peace holds long enough for governance to be rebuilt and whether governance improves enough for investments to translate into development gains”.

“An illustrative scenario – the Sudan Rising pathway – models an end to the conflict this year alongside reasonable progress in education, health, demographics, governance, manufacturing, infrastructure and financial flows. Forecasts suggest that the dividends of peace and reconstruction could be enormous.

“In this scenario, Sudan’s GDP (Gross Domestic Products) could expand by $19.3 billion by 2043, with the economy growing at five percent on average compared to 2.4% under current projections. The country could lift 17.3 million more people out of extreme poverty in this scenario.”

Before any economic improvement can happen the researcher writes, “achieving peace requires the commitment of all stakeholders”.

“Despite considerable diplomatic efforts, the main challenge is unlocking a political strategy to tackle the country’s deep ideological divisions and competing mediation efforts”.

“Despite several discussions and peace negotiations, including the Jeddah framework facilitated by the United States (US) and Saudi Arabia, the war continues. More recent diplomatic efforts, including through the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and United Arab Emirates (the Quad) and AU-led Quintet (with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, UN, European Union and League of Arab States), have yet to produce the desired outcome.

“The failure of these negotiations and agreements emanates from deep divisions in and among Sudanese political and civilian groups. It also reflects the fragmented overlapping efforts by external diplomatic actors with competing interests, all apparently working at cross purposes.

“Successful mediation will require a unified architecture linking ceasefire, humanitarian access, civilian dialogue, accountability and a political transition that assigns specific functions to different diplomatic efforts. For instance, the Jeddah framework could focus on ensuring a ceasefire, while the Quad could use its influence to limit external military support. The Quintet could lead a process to navigate Sudan’s political transition through an all-inclusive political dialogue.”