Bulletins and News Discussion from February 26th to March 3rd, 2024 - Breaking The Siege Of Omdurman - COTW: Sudan
The war in Sudan has so far been marked by a lot of incompetency and mismanagement by government forces (the SAF). After months of bitter fighting, in late 2023, the opposing Rapid Support Forces suddenly expanded their control towards the southeast of Khartoum after not a lot of resistance, most notably taking the city of Wad Madani. This led the SAF supporters and officials to panic and point fingers at each other about what the hell the army is even doing, while RSF soldiers looted the city.
These victories led to a short period in late December and early January where diplomacy and peace talks were considered, but such attempts fell apart. The leader of the RSF visited various African countries, including meeting Paul Kagame in Rwanda, to boost his legitimacy. Then, the RSF attacked into South Kordofan and consolidated their hold on other areas.
The Sudanese capital of Khartoum sits on a river which divides it from the city to its west, Omdurman (see the post image). The SAF and RSF have been fighting over this grand urban area for the whole war, with the RSF holding most of Khartoum (with an entirely cut-off SAF force holding on in the center), with a similarly cut-off SAF force also in eastern Omdurman, up against the river. For 10 months, this force has been under siege - but no longer. In perhaps the first actual W of the war for the SAF, they finally managed to break the siege a week ago, pouring supplies in. This leaves a section of the RSF now cut off, though Omdurman is still not under full SAF control (and, who knows, the whole situation could once again go badly for the SAF).
Meanwhile, the Sudanese socioeconomic situation has completely collapsed, with potentially a 20% fall in GDP and 8 million people displaced, with 2 million from Khartoum alone. 18 million Sudanese, or about a third of the population, is in acute hunger, and 20 million children are out in school. The refugees streaming out of the country are causing knock-on effects in neighorboring countries like Chad. Nobody is even really counting the dead anymore.
Red is the government forces, the SAF. Blue is the RSF opposition. Other colours are various factions.
The Country of the Week is Sudan! Feel free to chime in with books, essays, longform articles, even stories and anecdotes or rants. More detail here.
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section. Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war. Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language. https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one. https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts. https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel. https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator. https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps. https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language. https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language. https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses. https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
A ceasefire and the two-state solution, which China has persevered with despite Israel’s rejection, are seen as largely unattainable by Palestinians. They want Beijing to be more precise and forceful in its support for their liberation, as they say it has become increasingly clear that the Western position does not align with theirs.
While China cannot “resolve” the conflict, as a superpower and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, it could “do more to mitigate” it, according to Razan Shawamreh, a doctoral researcher of international relations at the Eastern Mediterranean University.
“The Palestinian sense of marginalisation and vulnerability, stemming from US policies that support Israel’s crimes, have prompted them to find potential alternatives for support and solidarity, and they find it in China,” the Cyprus-based Palestinian academic said.
Beijing’s reactions signified both its support as well as its policy of not interfering or meddling in other countries’ affairs. But that should not be construed as an unwillingness to facilitate negotiations in international conflicts, Shawamreh said.
In November, President Xi Jinping called for an end to the “collective punishment against the people of Gaza” with Beijing later issuing its formal position paper on the conflict, urging a comprehensive ceasefire and the establishment of a UN conference to draw up a road map for a two-state solution.
“I contend that it can engage in serious bilateral discussions with both parties, extending beyond its peace proposals, given the positive regard in which both sides of the conflict hold China, in recognition of its rising influence,” Shawamreh said.
Zoon Ahmed Khan, a research fellow at the Beijing-based Centre for China and Globalisation, said the capacity for China to act positively towards a resolution was enhanced by the fact “it has historically been sympathetic towards the Palestinian cause while maintaining pragmatic relations and broadened engagement with Israel”.
Then there is some explanation that the US is using the same "You're against Ukrainian Nazis then you're a Putler bot" shit but with the geopolitical equivalent of "do you condemn Hamas". This is not as important the better part is this
US politicians’ portrayal of ceasefire demands as being Chinese or Russian-led efforts to destabilise the West may have impeded the bid for Palestinian liberation, pushing it further out of reach. A more involved Global South is the answer, according to Rula Shadeed, co-director of the Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy, which advocates for the embattled population.
Shadeed said China’s clear support for Palestine would have a “very powerful effect” on the conflict, giving a boost to smaller states that may have been concerned about the consequences of doing the same.
“China has an important role, but it definitely can do much, much, much more,” she said. “The trade relationship between China and Israel has been ongoing, for example. There has not been anything that was stopped, no calls for summoning the Israeli ambassador. There was not even mentions or threats of cutting ties [as Israeli offensives continue].”
In January, state-owned China Cosco Shipping Corporation reportedly planned to stop delivering goods into Israel because of actions by Houthi militants in the waters. Chinese ambassador Cai Run was reportedly summoned by Israel’s foreign ministry over the move.
Shadeed said Beijing had to shift its position away from a two-state solution, which was an “ancient stock” that had been proven to be “merely impossible” by the pervasive system of segregation that Palestinians have faced for more than seven decades.
“I think that most Palestinians don’t care about states any more – what they care about, which is rightly important, is liberation. They want the entire killing to stop, they want their economic situation to flourish, they want to have normal lives, access to health and education, and the right of movement.”
Israel has maintained its “declaratory decision” to reject any recognition of Palestinian statehood. Top-ranking minister Eli Cohen said recently that peace agreements should be given up “if the price of expanding peace agreements is a Palestinian state”, reinforcing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that his country needed full security control over “the entire area in the west of Jordan”.
The average daily death toll in Palestine has exceeded that of any other major conflict of recent years, according to a January report by Oxfam.
But that killing could be stopped with some practical solutions, according to Vijay Prashad, historian and director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. He said permanent members of the Security Council, including China, could bring forward proposals similar to those imposed on Libya during the civil war of 2011.
“To stop the bombing, China can put forward a motion for a no-fly zone over Gaza and have Egypt monitor the flights over the area,” Prashad said. “It can also propose a full arms embargo – not even dual-use technology [goods, software and technology that can be used for both civilian and military applications] should be allowed to be shipped to Israel.”
Prashad said the fact that member states were not offering such motions was “perplexing” and “part of our colonial sensibility” that the UN’s agenda could not be set by non-Western states, who were not traditionally the decision-makers.
“There are moments like when the Chinese representative to the UN [Zhang Jun] stopped the Israeli ambassador from talking in a very undignified way – so it’s not like people aren’t asserting themselves, but why not assert themselves with a resolution?”
Prashad acknowledged that the proposals would likely be vetoed by the US, making Washington appear “even more complicit in the massacre than they are right now”.
The US again blocked a ceasefire resolution on Tuesday. It was the third US veto of a draft resolution since October 7. Zhang said the US vote – the only one against – was “nothing different from giving the green light to the continued slaughter” in Gaza.
The veto power has become increasingly controversial as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies, leading to inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
China and other countries could further consider recalling their ambassadors in Israel and removing Israeli diplomats in their countries in order to “put Israel on notice diplomatically”, Prashad said. They would be “straightforward” and “non-interventionist” moves to make a palpable stance against the unceasing violence.
Last week, Brazil recalled its ambassador to Israel while summoning the Israeli ambassador for a reprimand, amid tensions deepened by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s comparison of Israel’s war on Gaza to the Holocaust.
Prashad said that among his Palestinian peers, there was “a lot of respect” for China’s infrastructure investment in the West Bank, but in response to the current Palestinian suffering, the Global South in general has been “pretty timid”.
Yes there is a lot of anti-Zionism protesting, but at the top level, as the article makes clear, there is no global stance to oppose Israel yet. Maybe when people like Prashad are out there saying China needs to do more maybe we can get a more critical stance towards China?
Just 2 simple points imo going forward:
#1 We need China to step up and actualy take an active role if we want the world to actualy get better, transactional and billateral relations will not work in a world divided by a clear anti-communist block. If China needs allies they actually need to stand up and show they'll defend these alliances beyond token gestures. Everything happening around certain BRICS countries and their relation with Palestine is also a major pain, a huge embarrassing contradiction that needs to be resolved or else China will never be global leader for any sort of leftist/communist movement.
You absolutely can't say "material conditions" on one side to justify China and Egypt/UAE/Saudi relations and then continue to have relations with these countries as they facilitate the genocide.
#2 The inherent contradictions of SCC(or just Chinese capitalism if you want) are abundantly clear in this conflict, China's hypocritical stance towards Israel is not fooling anyone in the global south actually paying attention. When you refuse to actually harm Israel even with token gestures like economic relations then you have lose credibility and people are starting to notice. People will demand real support for their cause, not just grandiose statements at the UN.
The sad part is all of this should be the common communist position, yet it is published on the South China Liberal Rag Post.
Agree with all of this, except trying to push for a no-fly zone over Israel is a silly idea imo. I’m sure they see such a thing would never come to fruition and would just make them look weak. The US would never allow it
this would represent a major change in China's foreign policy if they were to more directly intervene, I would be extremely surprised if they 180'd like that so soon
#1 We need China to step up and actualy take an active role if we want the world to actualy get better, transactional and billateral relations will not work in a world divided by a clear anti-communist block. If China needs allies they actually need to stand up and show they'll defend these alliances beyond token gestures. Everything happening around certain BRICS countries and their relation with Palestine is also a major pain, a huge embarrassing contradiction that needs to be resolved or else China will never be global leader for any sort of leftist/communist movement.
Yeah, I agree, now and the years to come will be the moment when the rubber hits the road on how serious China actually is about all the words they're spouting about multipolarity and so on. If China doesn't step up then it doesn't mean the end of the world and a thousand more years of American Empire, it just means that the periphery is more-or-less on its own when it comes to anything more than passive economic development and trade facilitated by China and friends, which is a frightening prospect given that debts are the worst they've ever been but the empire is also looking real wobbly too, so pessimism isn't warranted
I disagree, the Chinese communist position is clear, intervention theory on places that you do not know the political situation of and control are a bad idea. They have encountered this in both Vietnam and with the Soviet Union. Economic sanctions, as we have discussed many times in reference to Russia, are pointless to ending conflict. It is pretty clear that the Chinese have not cracked down on shipments breaking the blockade to Palestine, but neither are they interested in stopping trading with Israel. Which shouldn't be surprising given that Russia is still trading with Ukraine and NATO countries despite the sanctions. All you do is aggravate political tensions at home unnecessarily. Where do your true threats lie? In angry developing world countries who know that between you and the U.S. you will usually be able to cut them a better deal, or your internal bourgeoisie?
China has repeatedly made their positions clear. You are responsible for the stability and political situation of your own country. They will have to be dragged (probably by U.S. foreign policy) kicking and screaming into an affective leadership position on the global stage. I like what China does, I am glad that they exist and operate as they do, because the world is a better, kinder place because of it. I do not expect them to ever be a 'global leader of communism' nor to challenge the hegemon directly and physically. Even if they did, I don't think it would be a good idea.
The main objective is clear for everyone. Wait for the internal contradictions within U.S. to produce a Gorbachev, contract and further balkanize the imperial system. Then assess and plan ahead from there. Control what you know you can.
China has repeatedly made their positions clear. You are responsible for the stability and political situation of your own country
Just to make sure here is one of the relevant quotes from the article again
A more involved Global South is the answer, according to Rula Shadeed, co-director of the Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy, which advocates for the embattled population. Shadeed said China’s clear support for Palestine would have a “very powerful effect” on the conflict, giving a boost to smaller states that may have been concerned about the consequences of doing the same.
An actual Palestinian person said this isn't about responsibility but rather the fact China's inaction/ambiguous stance is harming and preventing smaller global south countries from standing up in fear of lack of support.
Surely at some point it should be obvious a selfish Foreign Policy can be harmful to others and if that is the case you should be morally responsible, no Chinese worker will be harmed if you slap some sanctions on Israel. This false dichotomy is also harmful too. China can do more without harming their overall situation because that is the benefit of being a global superpower.
You may not agree of course it is all opinion in the end so who cares, but we need to accept the CPC is not infallible and IMO we are communists not nationalists and more and more the Chinese excuses borrow from nationalist self-preservation/interest rhetoric than real leftist or communist rhetoric IMO.
You are literally quoting a person from a non-profit as if they have any real idea what the diplomatic stances of smaller nations are or why exactly they engage in them. If smaller nations are scared, they will have to engage with diplomacy with China to convince them to act, not speak through a third party.
Again, China's position is not ambiguous. They will engage with diplomacy and speak to their opinion of the situation, but they will not come in to rescue you nor protect you. They will protect their interests because their national preservation IS (for them) the preservation of one of the last countries attempting to achieve communism. It is not nationalist rhetoric, it is historical understanding what makes a successful revolution, and not a resentment towards a perceived oppressor. China will not be history on horseback, so hopefully it lasts longer. Just because you don't agreed with the conclusion does not mean it is not based in a want for communism. Become a Trotskyist or a Maoist of you really care that much about the truth of tendency.
That means if smaller nations are going to stand up, they have to just do it and not use China as an excuse to not do so. If they are successful and stabilize the situation, then China will support them. But those small nations will not, because they are just as beholden to the system that preserves them as China is, likely making promises to this Foreign Policy co-director as a means to save face, if they have actually been speaking to him at all.
Are sanctions and intervention the right thing to do? I don't know. Probably. I'm just saying that people have to nut up and not look to China for leadership they clearly do not want to take. I never said they are infallible, I am merely saying that the decision they are making is still a communist decision.