Sudan - How economic problems forced it to recognise Israel

SUDAN is a country that once placed great emphasis on the implementation of Islamic teachings. In addition to declaring the implementation of shariah law in 1983, it produced many eminent Islamic scholars, including the late Sheikh Hasan Turabi and and the late Prof Malik Badri, known to many as the ‘Founder of the Field of Modern Islamic Psychology’.

Sudan is also known for its firm stance against any peace efforts with the Israeli Zionist regime. In 1967, Sudan hosted a meeting of the Arab League which famously declared the 3 principles regarding Israel, namely:

1. No peace

2. No recognition

3. No negotiation

Unfortunately, in October 2020, the Sudanese government went completely against all of the above principles when it agreed to normalise relations with Israel. Without doubt, Sudan's stance has disappointed millions of Muslims around the world, especially Palestinians who have been oppressed by the Israeli Zionist regime for more than 70 years since the illegal state of Israel was established on their land in 1948. The Palestinians are still being oppressed today. Palestinian-owned lands are still being illegally confiscated, thousands are in Israeli prisons including women and children and millions of Palestinian refugees are still not allowed to return to their homeland which is their right under international law. In addition, Palestinians in Gaza are still besieged by the Israeli army, making the territory what many describe as the world’s largest open-air prison.

Due to these, Muslims around the world are shocked, puzzled and wondering what led Sudan to make such a treacherous move betraying the struggle to liberate Palestine? This short article will explain how Sudan’s economic problems, which have grown very serious over the past few decades, are the main factor.

Sudan used to have a strong economy as it had a developed a vibrant agricultural sector that produces cotton, peanut, sesame, sorghum, corn, barley and sugarcane. It also has a large livestock sector. Some of the outputs are exported abroad. Sudan also exports gold worth tens of millions of US dollars a year. It is therefore a country with abundant natural resources. When oil was discovered in 2000, it became the main source of national income and the country of Sudan became more affluent.

However, one negative aspect of the existence of the oil sector was that Sudan developed an excessive dependency on it. As a result, the agricultural sector was neglected. Even more unfortunate was that influential leaders and politicians saw the oil revenue as an opportunity to enrich themselves and to strengthen their political positions. They began to abuse power by using the oil revenue to fund expensive construction projects whose contracts were awarded to companies owned by their friends and cronies.

The preoccupation of Sudan’s leaders to remain in power rather than plan for the long-term future of the country resulted in their failure to use revenue from oil sources to solve the country's debt problem which has existed since the time Jaafar Nimeiri was president from 1969 to 1985. The situation is actually quite perplexing since Sudan claims to be an Islamic country and even announced the implementation of shariah law in 1983. But sadly, like many other Islamic countries, when it comes to government finances, for political expediency the Islamic teaching that condemns taking debt from profit-seeking lenders is ignored.

Sudanese rulers after Jaafar Nimeiry, namely Sadiq Al Mahdi and Omar Bashir, continued the same practice of enriching their cronies, as well as the military. In addition, the practice of borrowing funds from external sources also continued because the government needed funds to continue providing subsidies to the people. In the short term, the policy was politically beneficial as it was able to alleviate popular dissatisfaction. But this approach exposed Sudan to serious financial problems.

In an effort to placate Islamic groups, the Sudanese government became vocal in their criticism of Western governments and Israel and in support of Al Qaeda and Hamas. This displeased the Zionist lobby in the US and as a result the US included Sudan in the list of `State Sponsors of Terrorism’ and it was subjected to economic sanctions adding further to its economic problems. The Sudanese government's conflict with the people of Darfur that began in 2003 also served to worsen and further tarnish the image of the Sudanese government.

Sudan was also facing problems from a separatist movement in the south of the country where Christians constitute the majority of the population. They were seeking independence from Sudan. Their demand was supported by many Western-based Christian groups.

In 2005, the combination of strong international pressure and weak domestic economic conditions forced Sudan to enter into an agreement with Christian separatists from the south. It also agreed to hold a referendum to determine whether southern Sudan was to be granted independence. The referendum was one of the consequences of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement between the Khartoum central government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army.

On 7 February 2011, the referendum commission published the final results, with a landslide majority of 98.83% voting in favour of independence. Since most of the oil wells were in the southern provinces, southern Sudan’s independence reduced Sudan’s oil revenue by 75%. This forced the Sudanese government to cut subsidies given to the people including bread and fuel subsidies, leading to widespread protests by youths and students that lasted for several years. In an effort to control the situation, the military regularly cracked down hard on protesters resulting in deaths. This created greater hatred for the government, especially since many were convinced that the Sudanese government under the rule of President Omar Al Bashir was very corrupt.

In 2019, the Sudanese military realised that the situation was untenable and decided to overthrow President Omar Bashir and have him imprisoned. But Sudan’s economic problems remain unresolved, including inflation which worsened when the value of the Sudanese currency depreciated against foreign currencies thereby increasing the cost of imported goods. The government also faces a serious debt problem. The new Sudanese government under Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok is therefore, in a very tight spot and facing the growing anger of his people.

Exploiting this situation, the Trump administration offered financial assistance to Sudan, provided that Sudan recognizes the state of Israel. This was the key message given by then US secretary of state Mike Pompeo during his August 2020 meeting with Abdalla Hamdok in Khartoum. The Sudanese government capitulated to the conditions imposed by the US and agreed to recognise and normalise relations with Israel in October 2020. Of course, many Sudanese especially the Islamist groups do not agree with this decision. But they have not had a strong influence on the government since then president Omar Bashir imprisoned Islamic leader Sheikh Hasan Turabi in 2011.

It seems that the Sudanese government now feels that, despite widespread disagreement among many Sudanese with the normalization move with Israel, the people’s anger over economic problems is the more serious threat to its hold on power.

In conclusion, there are several lessons that we can learn from the case of Sudan. First, corruption, abuse of power and cronyism will destroy a country's economy in the long run. It is therefore crucial for a transparent political system to be implemented to prevent the cancer of corruption from spreading to the rest of society.

Second, the people must be educated to be willing to sacrifice and be steadfast to support policies that are for the long-term good of the country. Otherwise, they will continue to ask for subsidies, even if the government can’t actually afford them.

Third, if the government faces serious economic problem, it will be tempted to borrow from external sources. This will threaten the sovereignty of the country in the long run. If the funds are borrowed from the IMF, we must also be aware that it is actually under the control of the American banking industry which is heavily influenced by the Zionist lobby and their supporters.

Finally, leaders and their peoples must be educated on the dangers of debt, especially those from external sources, because a country facing debt problems will be weak and vulnerable to pressures from external parties to the point of being unable to hold on to noble principles when formulating policies.

---

* Prof Dr Mohd Nazari Ismail is a lecturer at Faculty of Business and Accounting, University of Malaya

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI