Netanyahu Visit To Uganda: Was Sudan The ‘Good News?’

Before his latest trip to Uganda, Israel prime minister promised the world in the media to return with good news. But while in Uganda Netanyahu openly addressed only two issues that are of no-news value: direct flights between Israel and Uganda as well as opening embassies in each other’s capital. To both suggestions, Uganda is tactically non-comital. So that couldn’t constitute good news.

But it has since emerged that the Prime minister had an odd opportunity to meet with interim Sudan military leader; Gen Buhar in Uganda, thanks to the behind the scenes efforts of various international spy agencies—Mossad (Israel), ESO (Uganda), NISS (Sudan) and CIA (US).

The interface discussed the restoration of diplomatic relations between Israel and Sudan but also had direct implications on the question of thousands of Sudanese migrants (Durufurians) based in Southern Israel. These two issues are heavy news stuff to not only the people of Israel but to a wider scale of the middle east region, the global Muslim community and the international audience. The question though is, how ‘good news’ are they and to who?

To the people of Israel?

An agreement to restoring diplomatic relations would effectively make Sudan become the first major Muslim country to open an embassy in the new Israel capital, Jerusalem, unlike other countries already having theirs in Tel-Aviv. This is good news to Israelis happy with Jerusalem as their capital. And if Khartoum would announce this development before the March 2 election; it would definitely hand Benjamin Netanyahu a straight victory and avoid a possible rerun in case of an impending stalemate. In other words, although there is legitimacy in restoring relations between Khartoum and Tel-Aviv, the timing suggests that Netanyahu hurriedly used this opportunity to manipulate Sudan’s dire need for international economic reintegration to his political advantage. This makes it ultimately more ‘good news’ for him than to all the people of Israel.

To Donald Trump?

This happening just a couple of days to the Senate vote on his impeachment on Feb 5, news of the normalized relations between Sudan and Israel would be expected to generate second thoughts among senators that are often vulnerable to Jewish influences. Sudan is internationally perceived as a major Muslim nation with 98% of citizens being Muslims—all well informed of the historical values of East Jerusalem (home to al-Quds masjid) to the global Muslim community. Therefore, Khartoum’s endorsement of Jerusalem for Israel has enormous significance. It influences other African Muslim countries to follow suit. And by implication, opens a floodgate of other world countries to open their embassies in Jerusalem—with all credit going to Trump’s insight. Currently, it is only USA and Guatemala that have opened embassies there. To this end, Iran stands to getting increasingly isolated internationally, which must be the broader calculation of both Mossad and CIA beyond Netanyahu and Trump’s individual political interests.

To the people of Sudan?

A meeting in Uganda of Netanyahu, Gen Museveni and Gen Buhar is double sided for the people of Sudan in terms of hope. First it revives positive hope that now both Sudan and Uganda can commit to receiving and rehabilitating Sudanese migrants (Darufirians) and Eritreans being deported from Israel. Lately, Uganda had suspended more reception of these people after Israel negated its promise of providing logistics for their sustenance. It is as if it was merely dumping these people as useless materials and making Uganda a dumping ground.

Yet the victims were neither recognized internationally as refugees nor as legitimate asylum seekers. But the reason Israel was not investing in them is because it considered a number of them potential ‘infiltrators’ deployed by Omar Bashir among asylum seekers. And this is the key Mossad interest in having them deported no matter the international opinion over the exercise.

The second side is that whereas Darufurians would be happy to freely return home, economic conditions in their country are still so pathetic that they would rather opt for slavery in Southern Israel. Yet, the current leadership in Khartoum faces a serious dilemma; it has prioritized revival of the economy as a measure leading to political and social stability.

It has opted to start by reclaiming the frozen assets worth billions of dollars. To accelerate this process, Khartoum has to desperately bend to several international suggestions, some of them quite unappealing to its people. Obviously, news of a now or future Sudan embassy in Jerusalem can never appeal to its 98% population.

What Washington must appreciate though, is that in order to best help Sudan effectively participate in the global campaign to combat terrorism is by helping to lift it economically, unfreeze its assets to unlock the economic potential of its youth so that they cease to be vulnerably used by rogue terrorist groups within and outside the country. That would constitute the best ‘good news’ to the global audience.

Swaib K Nsereko || PhD Candidate University Of Gezira, Sudan, Assistant Lecturer, Islamic University In Uganda