Egypt and Sudan Resume Rapprochement
Immediately following the U.S. attack in August on the Shifa chemical plant
in Sudan, Sudanese political and military leaders charged that, not only
did the attack involve U.S. aircraft, instead of missiles as was officially
reported, but those aircraft may have come from bases in Egypt. The August
25 Global Intelligence Update detailed the assertions of Sudanese President
Omar Hasan al-Bashir, who said that U.S. aircraft had been observed as they
arrived from the north, attacked the plant, and departed northwards, over
the city of Berber. Omar said the aircraft were not the type that could
fly from carriers, and he hoped the aircraft "had not taken off from Egypt" (http://www.stratfor.com/services/gintel/region/stories/082598.html).
While Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa denied that the attack was
carried out by aircraft, he did little to dispel Khartoum's suspicions,
meeting two days after the attack with Sudanese opposition leaders, whom
Khartoum had blamed for providing the intelligence reports the U.S. used to
target the plant.
Now, barely three weeks later, Khartoum's tone has changed, spurred by
positive Egyptian gestures. On September 12, Sudan TV reported that
Sudan's political sector ministers, led by First Vice President Ali Uthman
Muhamad Taha, had met extensively to discuss Sudan's ties with Egypt. The
ministers reportedly expressed appreciation for Egypt's position against
the U.S. attack on the Shifa plant. In the aftermath of the attack,
Sudanese officials had described the Arab community's response to the
attack, and particularly the response of Egypt, as tepid. Now, however,
Khartoum reportedly considers Egypt as having been instrumental in
convincing the Arab League to condemn the attack.
In addition to Egypt's stance on the U.S. attack on Sudan, Cairo's
humanitarian efforts in the wake of flooding and famine in Sudan have won
praise from Khartoum. Egypt provided $300,000 worth of aid to Sudan in
August, and has recently sent plane-loads of aid to flood-ravaged areas of
the country. In his latest move, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, on
September 14, dispatched a medical team to Khartoum, led by Health Minister
Dr. Ismail Sallam.
On September 15, the Egyptian newspaper "Al-Akhbar" cited Sudanese Foreign
Minister Mustafa Othman Ismail as voicing his government's appreciation for
the aid Egypt has provided to flood-ravaged regions of Sudan. Ismail said
that the aid was "a good gesture from Mubarak, and proof that ties between
the two countries are deeply-rooted and time-honored." On September 14,
the Sudanese parliament voiced its support for President Bashir's call for
the normalization of relations with Egypt. The parliament reportedly
endorsed a package of measures for "defusing the tension" between Egypt and
Sudan. In addition, Sudanese Foreign Minister Ismail has been dispatched
to Cairo to hold talks on hastening the improvement of bilateral relations.
Sudan's dramatic change of tone has been sparked by Egyptian initiatives --
initiatives which can only breed concern in the United States and Israel.
Egypt's opening to Sudan is driven by several factors. First, Mubarak is
eager to bring Egypt's fundamentalist rebels under control. The attack on
tourists at Luxor raised the specter of another Algeria, where
fundamentalist forces have waged a brutal campaign against the regime and
its supporters. The fact that the Egyptian fundamentalists' sponsors,
Osama Bin Laden and the Sudanese, managed to plan and carry out
simultaneous attacks on two U.S. embassies in East Africa, only deepened
Cairo's concern. Proven unable to defeat the rebels, Cairo instead turned
to the Sudanese, hoping Khartoum could rein them in.
Egypt's opening to Sudan also provides Cairo with leverage against the U.S.
and Israel. As the U.S. stood by and allowed the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process to collapse, Cairo tried desperately to change Washington's policy.
For leverage, Egypt attempted to demonstrate that its allegiance was no
longer assured, and that it had other policy options. However, Egypt's
flirtation with Iran failed to raise any eyebrows in either the U.S. or
Israel, both of whom were pursuing their own initiatives with Tehran. But
Sudan, and by extension Bin Laden, is another story. These clearly push
American buttons, and perhaps an Egyptian rapprochement with Khartoum will
finally get Washington's attention. Egypt may have seized on a strategic
lever to use against the U.S., something which will no doubt increase
friction in Cairo's relations with Washington, but Washington has had
little to offer Cairo recently anyway.
Improving relations with Sudan sends a message to Israel as well. Egypt is
the center of gravity in the Arab world. It has shaped and anchored the
region's approach to Israel, from all out war, to grudging acceptance, to
now growing displeasure. If Egypt is willing to treat with radicals who
have vowed the destruction of the state of Israel and the elimination of
American presence and influence in the Middle East, what else will it do?
How far is Egypt willing to go? Israel must now take this into account,
both in its short term dealings with the Palestinians, and in its long
term, strategic planning.
Israel has been undergoing a strategic reevaluation, preparing to shift its
defensive strategy away from a conventional model to a strategic deterrent
and response capacity against unconventional warfare. This proposal has
only been feasible in the context of a neutral Egypt. With the potential
for an openly hostile Egypt, Israel must take into account Egypt's huge
conventional army. To defend both against nuclear, biological, and
chemical warfare or terrorism, and the Egyptian army, Israel's
reorganization will become much more expensive.
Egypt is awaiting the U.S. and Israeli response. In the meantime, it must
also think about its relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of whom
oppose Bin Laden. Sudan provides Egypt with a lever, but not a perfect
one.
In a side note, we still wonder about Sudan's assertions that it was
attacked by aircraft, if only because of the vehemence and detail with
which Sudanese officials made their claims. Bashir claimed that aircraft
identified as "fighter bombers 111" took part in the attack, and we wrote
that the U.S. no longer uses F-111 fighter bombers. However, one of our
readers noted that U.S. electronic countermeasures versions of the F-111
can still occasionally be seen over Saudi Arabia. Bashir did assert that
Sudanese anti-aircraft positions were unable to engage the alleged
attacking aircraft because their radars were jammed. We also note that the
alleged departure route over Berber is northeasterly, toward the Red Sea
and Saudi Arabia, rather than northerly, toward Egypt. Again, the official
U.S. account is that Tomahawk cruise missiles struck terrorist facilities
in Sudan and Afghanistan, and there is little evidence to suggest that
Sudan's claims are anything but rubbish, but they do make for interesting
speculation.
___________________________________________________
To receive free daily Global Intelligence Updates
or Computer Security Alerts, sign up on the web at
stratfor.com, or send your name,
organization, position, mailing address, phone
number, and e-mail address to alert@stratfor.com
___________________________________________________
STRATFOR Systems, Inc.
504 Lavaca, Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 512-583-5000
Fax: 512-583-5025
Internet: stratfor.com
Email: info@stratfor.com
|
