At a time when many Sudanese expected Massad Boulos, the U.S. President’s Advisor for African and Arab Affairs, to achieve a swift breakthrough that would pave the way for ending the war which has been raging between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) for nearly three years—based on the direct support he receives from President Donald Trump due to their family ties through marriage, the unexpected happened. Boulos’s attempts to break the deadlock between the warring parties have failed to achieve any significant breakthrough amid escalating fighting and a deteriorating humanitarian situation.
On the other hand, Boulos has become a subject of controversy regarding his proposals and movements to resolve the Sudanese crisis. Some believe he has increased the complexity of the Sudanese scene by aligning with certain parties over others. How do observers view his handling of this crisis in terms of his neutrality, integrity, positions, and ability to grasp the complexities of the Sudanese reality and its social and political entanglements?
A Suspicious Character
Political science specialist Al-Zamzami Bashir believes that “Massad Boulos is a controversial figure who sometimes crosses diplomatic lines. Although he is active and has extensive movements and communication with parties related to the Sudanese issue, he often exceeds his boundaries.” He added, “I believe there is influence on Boulos from several parties, and it is clear that he is close to the ‘Sumoud’ civil forces alliance led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. He also appears sympathetic toward the ‘Tasees’ (Founding) government led by the Rapid Support Forces. Furthermore, he seems clearly influenced by the Emirates, despite Army Commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s repeated rejection of any Emirati mediation or role in resolving the Sudanese conflict.”
Bashir continued, “It is well known that one of the basic conditions for the success of any negotiations is the parties’ acceptance of the mediator. Therefore, the lack of integrity of the mediator (the UAE) and its intrusion into this matter has made Abu Dhabi an undesirable party. It plays a fundamental role in fueling the war, as documented by international reports; despite this, Boulos insists on its presence and imposing it as a mediator.” He added, “From my follow-up of this American advisor’s movements and statements, he does not resemble American diplomacy in any way, nor does he reflect the positions and capabilities of U.S. President Donald Trump, who deals firmly and decisively in foreign policy issues. He does not seem to me to be the right person capable of finding a solution to the Sudanese problem, especially since there is a Saudi initiative that enjoys strong American support and only needs active diplomatic movement to pressure the parties. However, it is clear that Boulos is not practicing his role with neutrality and integrity.”
Bashir pointed out that “the strange thing is his insertion of unagreed-upon issues. He cannot determine and make decisions regarding the country’s political future that are essentially at the heart of domestic affairs, such as his rejection of Islamist participation in governance. For example, Israel is governed by Likud and others, and that is normal. Therefore, he should have dealt with all Sudanese parties with complete neutrality. As an outside party, he should seek to unite the components of Sudanese society rather than seek to divide them and exclude some.”
The political science specialist concluded by saying, “Massad Boulos is a suspicious character and is not capable of achieving a breakthrough in the Sudan crisis. He does not seem to be a shrewd diplomat to me, and I do not think he will remain in his position for long due to his clear failure to make any progress in the Sudanese file.”
Lack of Experience
In a similar context, political researcher Hassan Abdel Hamid also believes that “Massad Boulos has not been neutral in his handling of the Sudanese file. He is crudely biased toward the side opposing the Sudanese government by adopting the claims and narratives of opponents prejudiced against Burhan’s government. Furthermore, he is biased toward the UAE, which is deeply involved in Sudanese bloodshed through its support for the Rapid Support Forces. Perhaps the reason for this is what some press reports stated, accusing Boulos of corruption and receiving bribes from the Emirates. As for his lack of objectivity, it appeared in his attempt to impose certain political forces to control Sudan’s political future, bypassing the opinion of the Sudanese people and their vision of them.”
Abdel Hamid criticized Boulos’s repeated talk about “excluding Islamists from the political scene” as a “clear indicator of his flagrant interference in Sudanese affairs with terrible ignorance,” stressing that “neither Boulos nor other regional and international powers can exclude a respected, ancient, and rooted social and political force; these are naive attempts doomed to failure.”
He stressed that “Boulos is currently unable to grasp the complexities of the Sudanese reality and its political entanglements. He is not known to have any experience in this field, and what has come from him does not encourage goodwill. He is a merchant trying to break into politics and its complexities without intellectual background or practical experience, and this has become clear to everyone following his statements and positions.”
The political researcher opined that “Massad Boulos adopts the views of the Zionist lobby and the Christian Zionist movement and tries to impose their visions on the Sudanese reality. Consequently, all his regional and international movements try to serve the goals of this axis. This is the starting point that will lead to the failure of his movements because the goals of this axis sharply conflict with Sudanese national visions and even with the requirements of Arab national security. From here, the miserable failure of his attempts will occur sooner or later.”
(Note: The text includes a brief interjection about Boulos participating with world leaders at the UN Security Council, chaired by British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, where a clear message was sent that there is no military solution.)
Confusion and Conflict
On the other hand, Sudanese writer Osman Mirghani said that “the intense focus on the person of Massad Boulos does not help in solving the Sudanese crisis. He does not move according to personal assessments but represents a country that plays a pivotal role in international politics.” Mirghani added, “Perhaps there is indeed confusion in his statements resulting from conflicting visions and interests of the parties in the Quartet, while he tries to take the reins. However, I believe the Quartet, as a system, is suitable for influencing the coordinates of the Sudanese crisis in a way that helps stop the war and initiate a cycle of governance led by a civilian leadership capable of overcoming this stage.”
The Sudanese writer continued, “Currently, the ball is in the Sudanese government’s court, as it has the highest interest in a peaceful solution and holds more playing cards than others.”
Crisis of Foundation
For his part, Noureddine Salah El-Din, a member of the Sudanese National Current, stated that “it is important to place the role in its institutional framework. Massad Boulos speaks in his capacity as an advisor to the U.S. President for African and Arab Affairs; therefore, his positions are read within the administration’s orientations in Washington, not as personal efforts separate from official policy.”
He added, “We do not look at the Sudanese crisis only from an angle of cold neutrality between two military parties, but from the angle of commitment to ending the war in favor of a civilian state based on institutions and law. Any international approach is evaluated by us according to two criteria: Does it actually press toward ending the war rather than managing it? And does it support an inclusive civilian political path or reproduce polarization?” He continued, “What is required from the briefings provided by Massad Boulos before the Security Council and international platforms is to reflect the complexities of the Sudanese scene and not reduce it to a simplified duality. Sudan does not only suffer from a military conflict but from a deep political and constitutional founding crisis, and any treatment that does not link the security and political paths will remain deficient.”
Salah El-Din continued, “Regarding Boulos’s statements about excluding Islamists, we distinguish between two things: legal accountability for crimes and violations—which is a non-negotiable matter and must be done through independent judicial mechanisms—and the abstract political right, which is not withdrawn by a political or international decision but is settled through the law and ballot boxes in a sound democratic context. Consequently, comprehensive political exclusion, whatever its title, has proven in the Sudanese experience that it deepens polarization and does not establish sustainable stability. Conversely, it is not acceptable for organizations dissolved by the order of a popular revolution to return to the scene outside the framework of the law or without a comprehensive review of their responsibilities for undermining the constitutional system.”
He went on, “In general, we do not evaluate international positions based on their verbal intensity, but on the extent of their consistency with a clear goal: ending the war, protecting civilians, and supporting a true civilian transition. Any international effort that approaches these standards, we will view positively; any approach that keeps the crisis in the circle of conflict management without a radical solution, we will express explicit reservations toward.”
Fair Participation
The member of the National Current explained that “based on our experience with the Sudanese crisis, it can be said that the understanding of any external party—whether Massad Boulos or someone else—of the entanglement of the Sudanese reality requires an ability to distinguish accurately between different levels of conflict. This is done by distinguishing between the army and the (paramilitary) forces, and the social and political complexities, considering that Sudan is a country of multiple identities and components. Conflicts there are not limited to military and political polarization but extend to the social, economic, and cultural fabric, as well as being linked to the historical transformations that have occurred in the country.” He added, “From this perspective, we find that the ability of any advisor or international party to understand Sudan is not measured by statements or general positions, but by the extent to which their recommendations align with the need to end the war, support civilian transformation, and ensure fair political participation for all parties not legally dissolved (the National Congress Party). Any international effort is viewed positively when it reflects this ability for balanced absorption of Sudanese complexities and is viewed with caution if it is limited to unilateral or rushed approaches.”
Salah El-Din noted that “the evaluation of the external movements of any international advisor or mediator must take into account the complex regional and international context, which applies to Boulos’s movements. It is noticeable that his efforts aimed at finding a solution to the Sudanese crisis face multiple challenges represented by the complexities of the international Quartet. The presence of a country like the UAE within the international Quartet imposes constraints on what can be worked on, given the divergence of interests and links with a party like the Rapid Support Forces; this limits the flexibility of any path. Added to this is the divergence of the Quartet parties and their visions for solving the Sudanese crisis, which makes coordination between its parties require the diplomat to have high sensitivity to avoid falling into a direct conflict of interests.”
He concluded by saying, “There are also signals of Saudi attempts to open parallel paths through coordination with the U.S. administration, while maintaining diplomatic silence about any bypassing of the official Quartet. This situation reflects the multiplicity of influential powers in the Sudanese file and complicates Boulos’s mission, in addition to the challenge of dealing with the Sudanese parties in the conflict. The ability of any mediator to influence is linked to the extent of their understanding of local red lines, their recognition of the disparity between the army and the forces, and the importance of strengthening the civilian path rather than just managing the military conflict. Therefore, any approach that does not take these differences into account will have a limited impact on the ground.”
The National Current member pointed out that “based on this, it can be said that Massad Boulos’s movements take place within a limited flexibility administrative and political framework. They are characterized by attempts to build bridges between different international and regional parties, but they are not without difficulties related to divisions within the international Quartet and the efforts of some parties to find parallel paths.”
مقالات ذات صلة
-
-
-
-
