|
|
 Collapse and Exploitation – A Critical Reappraisal Dr Ahmed Eltigani SIDAHMED
|
02:35 PM July, 10 2025 Sudanese Online
احمد التيجاني سيد احمد-ايطاليا
My Library
Short URL
Sudan’s war is not merely a fight between two armed factions. It is the prolonged disintegration of a postcolonial state model that failed to evolve beyond militarized extraction and ideological coercion. The SAF’s recapture of Khartoum and Gezira is, tactically, a turning point. But military control does not equate to state consolidation. Without an integrated political framework and inclusive governance, Sudan risks devolving into a patchwork of hostile enclaves—each answering to foreign sponsors or illicit economies.
Toward a Fork in the Road: Control or Collapse؟
The SAF, now in control of the capital and its agricultural corridor, must resist the illusion that military victories can substitute for political legitimacy. Rebuilding Sudan requires a new political contract—one not forged in Port Sudan’s bureaucratic rooms nor from the remnants of old Islamists—but in the towns, villages, and refugee camps of a fragmented nation.
The RSF, meanwhile, still controls much of Darfur and Kordofan. It is sustaining its military presence through revenues from gold, arms trafficking, and support from shadow networks—whether in the Gulf or Sahel. But its “state within a state” model is brittle, criminalized, and geopolitically vulnerable. The RSF's governance by coercion is a strategic liability in the long term.
The Real Imperative: Civic Sovereignty over Military Containment
Sudan’s moment of truth is not whether one side defeats the other—it is whether Sudanese civic forces, across the country, can seize the political vacuum to shape a national agenda beyond bullets and borders.
This requires:
- A federated model that respects regional autonomy while asserting national unity.
- A post-militarist framework in which both the SAF and RSF are subordinated to civilian command.
- A Sudanese-led reconciliation that centers the voices of all marginalized communities.
- A new constitutional architecture based on human dignity, inclusion, and accountability.
A Critical Look at Dr. Waleed Madibo’s Article
Dr. Madibo’s “Waiting for a Miracle” is an important warning shot—an essay that provocatively reframes Sudan’s crisis as less about humanitarian neglect and more about strategic postponement. His central thesis—that Sudan is seen by global powers as a “deferred resource” rather than a moral urgency—is both valid and insightful.
Strengths of the Article:
- Exposes the instrumental logic of international engagement.
- Names the hypocrisy of global actors shifting alliances for utility.
- Urges Sudanese readers to reject passivity and claim ownership.
Limitations and Gaps:
- No situational grounding in current military-political realities.
- Leans on conceptual abstraction without operational pathways.
- Omits mention of real civil initiatives and resistance frameworks.
Does It Lead to Conclusive Results؟
No—not directly. Dr. Madibo’s article is a moral indictment, not a policy proposal. It is diagnostic and philosophical, not strategic or operational. But it holds value as a frame-changer: it forces Sudanese thinkers and activists to see the broader stakes—not just winning the war, but redefining the nation’s purpose.
Final Word
Sudan stands at a crossroads: will it be reclaimed by its people, or carved up by global necessity؟ The SAF’s victories, while real, are fragile. The RSF’s resilience, while brutal, is unsustainable. The real pivot lies in whether Sudanese civilians—across regions, ethnicities, and ideologies—can imagine and construct a political future that breaks with militarism, Islamism, and dependency.
The world may come for Sudan’s oil and gold. But only Sudanese can rebuild its soul.
Dr Ahmed Eltigani SIDAHMED
Member of TASIS coalition
10 July 2025 Nokia Finland
|
|
    
|
|
|
|
|
|
احمد التيجاني سيد احمد
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست