South Sudan has been accused of being involved in supporting the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) commanded by Gen. Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti, in Sudan in their fight with the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) headed by Gen. Abdel-Fattah Al-Burhan.

Sudan has been undergoing political upheaval since the ouster of long-term leader Omar al-Bashir on 11 April 2019 by a coalition of SAF and RSF generals. The removal of Al-Bashir was precipitated by pro-democracy protests that gripped the country.

Protests in Sudan were in large part driven by economic difficulties that forced the National Congress (NCP) regime to initiate economic reforms such as eliminating subsidies for basic items such as bread and fuel. These protests ultimately brought to the fore underlying issues such as democracy, marginalization, and human rights.

The West, led by the United States, embraced the pro-democracy groups and provided support for reforms in the country. But there was also a much more sinister motivation behind the involvement of the West. One was Bashir’s government decision to give Russia a naval base in the Port Sudan region on the Red Sea.

Sudan is in an important Red Sea corridor that serves as a crucial access to the Indian Ocean. The Red Sea has always been a geostrategic access point as it serves the world’s economy in the movement of goods between Europe and Asia. On 11 February 2023, it was reported by AP News that the Sudanese military leadership had reviewed the agreement and given it a green light subject to ratification by parliament. The agreement would allow Russia to establish a naval base in Port Sudan for 25 years and subject to automatic renewal for 10 years thereafter if there are no objections from either side. In return, Sudan would acquire weapons from Russia.

Two months later 15 April 2023, Sudan descended into conflagration when RSF pre-emptively launched attacks on SAF bases across the country over, among other things, differences in the timeframe to integrate RSF into SAF.

The conflict in Sudan has negatively impacted South Sudan in various ways. Atop the list is the displacement of millions of Sudanese and South Sudanese civilians from their homes in the North. South Sudan has opened its doors to hundreds of thousands of Sudanese refugees. In the eyes of South Sudanese, these are not merely refugees but genuine brothers and sisters who just happen to be across some imaginary line.

The conflict has also disrupted economic activities across the border and oil transit operations. South Sudan relies on Sudan to export its oil to the international market. Additionally, oil processing facilities are mostly located in Sudan. Some of the facilities have been damaged or are not functioning properly due to a lack of skilled technicians to do repairs and other maintenance work necessary for the proper functioning of the pipeline. This means that the last thing that South Sudan needs is a war in Sudan and supporting either side in the conflict would appear to be not in the best interest of South Sudan.

However, South Sudan has been listed alongside Chad, Egypt, UEA, and recently Iran among others as countries involved in providing support to the belligerents in Sudan’s conflict. The border area between Sudan and South Sudan is very fluid and ill-defined. Rebels are operating against South Sudan that have bases in Sudan. These rebels may take independent actions to support sides in the current Sudanese civil war in the hope that whichever side emerges victorious in Sudan will provide support to rebels hoping to topple the South Sudanese government. The evidence being used to accuse South Sudan of involvement in the Sudanese civil war may have come from NGOs operating in the border region of the Sudan-South Sudan divide. However, it is imperative to not rush such evidence to court as it is difficult to tell the elements of the South Sudan Defense Force (SSDF) from rebels. If you have an inexperienced NGO staff or UNMISS soldiers observing rebels acting in a manner that appears to support RSF or SAF and submit a report to their real controllers in the West, it could be taken as concrete evidence and used to sow discord between Sudan and South Sudan and thereby torpedo South Sudan’s genuine attempts to bring warring parties to the peace table.

To disclose the elephant in the room, the real reason behind the allegations of South Sudan’s involvement in the conflict is to choke South Sudan economically and thereby induce a regime change. With Sudan in flames, the flow of oil has declined dramatically, and facilities are damaged such that it could take years to return production to pre-war levels. The West has for some time now concluded that the Government of South Sudan is irretrievably corrupt and needs to be overhauled. They have also concluded that South Sudanese are incapable of changing their government through peaceful and democratic means.

Therefore, a nudge from the West is necessary to make the populace feel the real pain in their daily lives and awaken them to the need for some kind of popular uprising or revolution that will appear to be owned by South Sudanese but is engineered to bring the country in line with West’s regional designs.

In summary, the allegation of South Sudan’s involvement in supporting either party to the war in Sudan is a pure myth designed to tarnish relations between Sudan and South Sudan. It is merely a ploy to hide the fact that Sudan’s war will result in the decline of oil exports and revenues and therefore cause political upheaval in South Sudan that will result in favorable regime change.

South Sudan has absolutely nothing to gain from supporting any party to the conflict in Sudan. South Sudan has its problems and adding to them by supporting continued fighting in Sudan would be myopic and a blunder of immense proportion. The best outcome for South Sudan is to see our sisterly country of Sudan return to peace.

The author, Jack Werkok,  is a South Sudanese and can be reached via jwerkok@gmail.com

The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.