Sudan in the African Union Commission Elections
Khalid Massa
With a mix of "poverty" and "recklessness," or perhaps both, Sudanese diplomacy has been mismanaged over the past decades, following a path similar to countries in the "rebellious school" of diplomacy that defied regional and international norms. This approach brought nothing but isolation and detachment from the international community, leaving their populations to bear the costly consequences of chaotic diplomacy.
The infamous chant of the former regime’s militants—“America, Russia, your torment has come near”—was not merely a military slogan to boost the morale of trainees but a poorly crafted diplomatic discourse. It laid the foundation for a diplomatic isolation that disconnected Sudan from the international community, subjecting it to sanctions, political and economic embargoes, and severe restrictions that weakened its ability to survive through manipulation of international political contradictions or reliance on alliances with rebellious states. These alliances quickly faltered under the pressure of international diplomatic norms dictated by decision-making nations and organizations.
A significant portion of Sudan’s current crisis, including the ongoing two-year war, is rooted in its diplomatic failures both regionally and internationally. This became particularly evident when the war broke out in April 2023, leaving Sudan isolated from its African surroundings after its suspension from the African Union (AU) following the October 25th decisions, which the AU classified as a coup against civilian authority. This diplomatic suspension prevented the AU from playing a constructive role in resolving Sudan’s conflict. Adding to this was Sudan’s further isolation when its membership in IGAD, the regional development organization, was also suspended—an action taken without regard for its consequences.
In February of next year, elections for the leadership of the African Union Commission (AUC) will be held at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Sudan’s continued suspension from the AU carries significant implications for these elections, as Sudan is now one of six African countries barred from contesting leadership positions in the AUC. Even if Sudan were to regain its AU membership, it would remain far from leading the AUC for years to come. This is due to the AU Summit held last February, which approved the principle of rotation among the continent’s five regions to ensure fair representation in AU leadership. For the upcoming February elections, the opportunity to contest the positions of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the AUC has been allocated to the East and North African regions, to which Sudan belongs, for a term of four years.
The significance of the upcoming AUC leadership elections can be analyzed from multiple angles, particularly their impact on Sudan.
Domestically, the Sudanese government must recognize that its isolation from the AU during a time of war creates unfavorable diplomatic conditions. This isolation could lead to solutions for Sudan’s crisis being imposed or chosen that do not align with its own vision. The United Nations and its Security Council, in all the initiatives presented so far, have consistently recognized the AU’s role in addressing Sudan’s war. This explains the AU’s lukewarm reception to initiatives not originating through its platforms.
Externally, the importance of these elections is reflected in the agendas and programs of the candidates for AUC Chairperson. The candidates include Djibouti’s Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, the longest-serving African foreign minister; Kenya’s Raila Odinga, former Prime Minister; and Madagascar’s Richard Randriamandrato, former Finance Minister. Sudan’s war was a prominent topic during debates held by the candidates in December and in discussions attended by African ambassadors and permanent representatives to the AU.
Djibouti’s candidate, who is considered the frontrunner and enjoys broad support from the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the Francophone bloc, addressed Sudan’s situation directly. He argued that suspending Sudan’s AU membership is not a solution. He emphasized the need to activate the AU’s Committee of African Presidents to address security and peace issues and stressed the importance of the AU’s “Silencing the Guns” initiative.
Most notably, he focused on addressing security vacuums across Africa, which are often exploited by external powers. He cited Sudan as the most prominent case, placing responsibility on Sudan’s neighboring countries to help resolve the crisis. He also called for funding to activate the African Standby Force (ASF), enabling the AU to respond quickly to crises. This vision aligns closely with the AU’s proposed initiative for resolving Sudan’s conflict and with the resolution presented by the UK at the UN Security Council.
Kenya’s Raila Odinga, another strong contender, enjoys considerable support. Kenya received majority backing from African nations in its bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Odinga has focused his campaign on addressing the root causes of conflicts in Africa and ending military coups as a means of transferring power on the continent.
There is broad agreement that the core issues in Sudanese diplomacy under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the war have acted as major obstacles to resolving the conflict. Recognizing this, Sudan’s government appointed a new Foreign Minister in its recent cabinet reshuffle. The minister’s top priority must be adopting a clear methodology to reform Sudan’s diplomatic approach, as this remains one of the key pathways to resolving the war. Effective diplomacy can shield Sudan from undesirable solutions that could further complicate the already dire situation.
