My favorite story in the Sudanese press yesterday came from Al Ray Al Aam. The headline read: “Egypt: the relationship between al-Bashir and Mubarak is stronger than it’s perceived by enemies.”

This scoop came from Safwat El-Sherif, the Secretary General of Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party and the Chairman of the Egyptian Shura Council. El-Sherif made these comments to a delegation of visiting Sudanese journalists in Cairo. He also stressed that Egypt views Sudan as its “strategic depth” and, as such, the country will spare no efforts to keep Sudan unified, strong, safe and secure.

What does this mean concerning Egypt’s response to a vote for southern secession in 2011? Well, probably not much, since first El-Sherif does not really make foreign policy and second Egypt has been sending mixed signals for months. At times, officials have said they would support southern independence and at other times they have hedged on such support. The debate about what to do in Cairo is likely still ongoing, given its importance to Egyptian national security.

However, El-Sherif’s interesting justification for a unified Sudan was only matched by his description of the wall that Egypt is building on its border with Gaza and his explanation of the current press freedoms in Egypt.

On unity: A generation was brought up on a love for Sudan and the unity of the Nile Valley. Such a generation believes in the unity of the Nile Valley and went out into the streets for it.

  • In fact, Sudanese chose independence in 1956. Sudanese leaders have often criticized Egypt’s intrusive  foreign policy that seems to forget often this historical and political reality.

On Palestine: There is no wall of steel, but actions of the armed forces to protect Egypt’s national security…We are free to choose the way we protect our national security.

  • In fact, the wall is made of super-strength steel says the BBC and Egypt has been complicit with Israel in the humanitarian blockade of Gaza.

On Freedoms: Egypt is experiencing unprecedented levels of freedom of opinion and expression, and it has allowed freedoms unprecedented in other Arab countries.


, , ,

What an interesting week.  I was not able to blog on much of it, but here is what I was reading:

It’s not just Sudan…more on China in Africa: The New York Times highlights political implications of a Chinese scholarship program for Namibia’s elite; China and Senegal hope to enhance military cooperation; and at the Globalist, two authors convincingly argue that “China is currently pursuing oil resources in unstable countries without regard for the political risk entailed. While that might play well in the short- to medium-term, it could cost China dearly down the line.”

It’s not just China increasing influence in Africa: Saudi Arabia held the first meeting of the Saudi-East Africa Forum in Addis Ababa this week. Representatives from seven East African countries attended: Ethiopia, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, Uganda and Rwanda.  A Saudi minister stated, “Saudi Arabia is committed to combating hunger, to provide support for the host country but also to generate exports. We are not to impose our needs above the needs of local population.” Sudan did not participate in the forum; however, the Saudi Development Fund announced this week that it was donating 15 million dollars for development and rehabilitation in Darfur.  The money will go to the “model villages” that the Arab League has pushed as an effort to help IDPs in Darfur return to normal lives.

Whither Yemen? Thats the title of a good blog summarizing the current challenges facing Yemen’s leadership.  It concludes that “the period ahead for Yemen is likely to be, to paraphrase Hobbes, ‘nasty and brutish.’” Another blog challenges the notion that Saudi Arabia’s recent intervention in Yemen’s conflict with the Houthi rebels could be good for the US because it will lead to the further militarization of the Gulf and a strong Sunni and Gulf alliance against Iranian encroachment throughout the Arab world. Ian Bremmer at Foreign Policy tends to agree that greater militarization and more proxy wars are usually not constructive anywhere and argues that a failed state next to the world’s largest oil exporter is reason enough for Americans to care about the conflict.

Read the rest of this entry

, , , , , , , , ,