Latest news with #RepublicanPalace
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Analysis: Sudan has an opportunity to turn the corner on war
When Sudan's army recaptured the Republican Palace in the capital Khartoum last month, the Sudanese people hoped it would signal the start of the final phase in the country's war, which enters its third year this week. Sadly, there will be no return to normalcy anytime soon for some of the 13 million displaced civilians who have started returning to their homes. Jubilant scenes of celebration are being tempered by the horror of discovering mass graves and wanton destruction. As the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) now consolidates its control over Khartoum, it faces not only a turning point but a decision point in the war. On the one hand it could pursue the retreating Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary back to the North Darfur capital of El Fasher in the hopes of eliminating the militia once and for all. The other approach would be to use its tactical and strategic gains to seek a final political victory and the legal dismantlement of the RSF through an internationally-recognized settlement. Both choices are fraught. If the SAF doesn't choose the path of peace, more people will suffer, the war will drag on for years, and its forces could end up disintegrating. This would create the conditions for Sudan to become the region's next failed state. The appeal of hunting down the RSF is high among the SAF leadership and much of the public. Bolstered by the hubris that comes from reclaiming the capital, and the acquisition of sophisticated Turkish drones, the army is riding high. But its track-record of fighting in Darfur is mixed. Indeed, the RSF's predecessor, the Janjaweed, was created because the SAF's conventional tactics were ill-suited to fight a counter-insurgency campaign there. This remains true. Coupled with the challenges that will come from having to maintain its own attenuated supply lines across a vast desert, the SAF could well be relinquishing many of the tactical and strategic advantages it currently enjoys if it goes to Darfur, setting up a potential Waterloo moment. But the SAF is likely also motivated by its own belief that an international peace deal risks giving the RSF a victory at the negotiating table it didn't earn on the battlefield. Moreover, the army feels betrayed by international actors who have supported the RSF against them and treated the two sides as equally culpable for the war and its crimes. For its part, the international community has done little to establish a track record of consistent and even-handed diplomacy that the army can trust. Viewed from the barracks, inviting in the international community to help end the war would be an act of political suicide, and perhaps trigger an even greater threat from more hardline, Islamist elements the military has employed to help turn the war's tide. With no one to trust internally or externally, the military believes its only choice is to open a new front in Darfur in the hopes of vanquishing an existential threat, which also justifies the army's continued hold on power. But it sets the stage for a new era of military rule paid for by the Sudanese people, whose losses of blood and treasure will be but an afterthought in the country's perennial state of war.
Asharq Al-Awsat
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
The Step that Follows Khartoum's Liberation
The liberation of Khartoum and expulsion of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) was a decisive and game-changing victory for the Sudanese army. It changed the course of the war, as key symbols of sovereignty, the Republican Palace, cabinet headquarters, and the country's most significant institutions under state control. It also dealt a crippling blow to the ambitions of the RSF leadership and its backers, who had hoped to seize power after the conflict broke out on April 15, 2023, with RSF fighters roaming the streets that morning and proudly chanting: 'We've taken the country... We've taken the country.' The rapid collapse of the RSF in Khartoum began with the loss of the Republican Palace, which had major military and psychological repercussions. I do not understand those who, with perverse logic, seek to frighten people by claiming that the army's victory in Khartoum will aggravate the situation and make the division of Sudan more likely. The truth is that the army's victory does not threaten Sudan's unity; its victory safeguards Sudan's territorial integrity and thwarts sick plans to carve it up. The army's defeat would open the door to dividing the country and its collapse, allowing opportunists, predators, and conspirators to profit. Others fuel skepticism from a different angle, arguing that after liberating Khartoum, the army might not be eager to keep waging the war in Darfur. They claim that this could leave the region under RSF control, allowing them and their Tasis allies to establish a parallel government that ultimately leads Sudan to partition. This narrative also makes insidious insinuations. It implies that the army is not interested in Darfur and has solely focused on liberating Khartoum, and before that, Al-Jazira. The goal is to incite racial and regional divisions, pitting the North and the Center against the periphery through the lie that the army will not show the same enthusiasm and determination in the battles in Darfur. These claims are a desperate attempt to spoil the public's mood following the liberation of Khartoum and the other regions reclaimed by the army, leaving the RSF in control of only the capitals and parts of four out of Darfur's five states, along with parts of Kordofan. The objective is to sow confusion, despair, and fear, in the hope that this will compel the army command to resume negotiations with the RSF, a prospect that is becoming increasingly far-fetched. In fact, many now believe that the window for negotiations has closed and that the army has no intention of giving the RSF a chance to regroup. Sudan's military leadership has explicitly said that the only terms it would accept are the disarmament of the RSF and the surrender of its remaining positions, refusing to grant immunity to those implicated in crimes. They have also emphasized that the RSF and its leadership will have no political or military role in the future. This unyielding position reflects the prevailing public sentiment, as the split between the majority of Sudan's people and the RSF has deepened as a result of the group's widespread human rights violations and its destruction of civilian property and state facilities. It is worth noting that the alarm over Sudan's partition resurfaces after every major victory by the army and its allied forces, as seen following the victories in Al-Jazira. Similar concerns were also raised in discussions about the parallel government that had envisioned and hoped to establish headquarters in Khartoum. At the time, and at present, the claim was that his government would entrench the partition of Sudan: army-controlled areas in the center, north, east, and southeast administered from the government in Port Sudan, and RSF-controlled regions of Darfur, Kordofan, and Khartoum. That, at least, was the plan. Just days before the army entered the Republican Palace, RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti) finally made an appearance through a hastily recorded video message. His speech was clearly a response to reports of mass defections, and he sought to boost his forces' morale and convince them to keep fighting. In a message that quickly proved unconvincing and was overtaken by fast-moving developments, he insisted that his forces would not withdraw from the palace, Al-Muqran, the cabinet headquarters in central Khartoum, and other strategic sites, and promised to make up for lost ground and emerge victorious. Not only did Hemedti's speech not have its intended effect, it also exposed the widening rift between the RSF leadership and its crumbling forces, who are becoming increasingly vocal about their discontent with commanders, with many audio and video recordings coming to light. While the decisive victory in Khartoum is significant, it does not mean the war is over. There is still a long way to go, but it is a turning point that will have major implications for the outcome of the conflict. The army will now shift its attention to Kordofan and Darfur, following the declaration it made, alongside its allied forces, that it will immediately take the battle there to liberate every last inch up to the country's territory. With this announcement, it directly rebuked the claims intended to spread fears of division.
MTV Lebanon
21-03-2025
- Politics
- MTV Lebanon
Watch: Control of the Republican Palace
The Sudanese army announced its control over the Republican Palace in Sudan. Watch the attached video for more.
Euronews
24-02-2025
- Business
- Euronews
Sudan's army breaks paramilitary siege of strategic city in latest advance
Sudan's military says it has broken an almost two-year siege by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on the strategic city of el-Obeid, in a major boost for the army in the country's civil war. The Sudanese army said late on Sunday that it had also taken back control of the town of el-Gitaina, located just south of the capital, which was the RSF's last stronghold in the White Nile province. The RSF has not publicly commented on the military's claims. Sudan was plunged into chaos in April 2023 when simmering tensions between the army and the RSF exploded into open warfare across the nation. Tens of thousands of people have been killed and at least 12 million displaced, and a humanitarian crisis is worsening. A military spokesman, Brigadier General Nabil Abdullah, said in a statement that the army had managed to reopen the road to the commercial and transportation hub of el-Obeid — which is the provincial capital of North Kordofan province — and destroy RSF units. Finance Minister Jibril Ibrahim hailed the military's advances in el-Obeid as a "massive step" to lift the RSF siege on el-Fasher — the capital of North Darfur province — as well as delivering humanitarian aid to the Kordofan area. The RSF has suffered a series of setbacks since September when the military launched an offensive aiming at recapturing the Great Khartoum area — Khartoum and its two sister cities of Omdurman and Khartoum North, or Bahri. In recent weeks, the army has captured strategic areas, including its own main headquarters and is close to recapturing the Republican Palace, which RSF fighters stormed in the first hours of the war. Elsewhere in the country, the military has also regained control of the city of Wad Medani — the capital of Gezira province — as well as the country's largest oil refinery. The developments on the ground have given the military the upper hand in the war, which is approaching its two-year mark with no realistic prospects for peace in sight. Mass rape and ethnically motivated killings The conflict has been marked by atrocities committed by both the army and the RSF, including mass rape and ethnically motivated killings, that may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, according to the UN and international human rights groups. The respective leaders of the army and the RSF — General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who is better known as Hemedti — have been sanctioned by the US over the abuses. Washington has also accused the RSF of committing genocide. Both the military and the RSF have strongly denied the accusations. The Sudanese army's advances on Sunday came hours after the RSF signed a political charter that paved the way for establishing a parallel government to challenge the military-backed administration. This proposed government is unlikely to gain much recognition but has further raised concerns about the splintering of the war-torn nation. The military currently controls the north and the east of Sudan, while the RSF and its allied militias hold most of the Darfur region in the west as well as areas in the south.
Saba Yemen
11-02-2025
- Politics
- Saba Yemen
Widespread Lebanese rejection of statements of US Deputy Envoy about Hezbollah
Capitals - Saba: The statements of the US Deputy Envoy to the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus, from Baabda Presidential Palace in Lebanon, sparked a storm of rejection in Lebanese political and popular circles.. considering these statements as direct interference in Lebanon's internal affairs. In a provocative move, Ortagus said during her visit to Baabda Palace today, Friday: The United States is keen to form a Lebanese government that does not include Hezbollah in any way, and that this party remains disarmed and outside the military equation, according to her expression. Commenting on Ortagus' statements, the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, MP Mohammad Raad, confirmed that these statements are a blatant interference in Lebanese sovereignty and a departure from all diplomatic etiquette and the requirements of international relations. Raad said in a statement issued today, Friday: 'The statement issued by the Republican Palace distanced the presidency from what the American envoy stated. We have had enough of commenting at length on what was included in her statement, which is full of hatred and irresponsibility, and attacks a national component in Lebanon that is part of the national accord and Lebanese political life.' He added: 'Her statement is a blatant interference in Lebanese sovereignty and a departure from all diplomatic etiquette and the requirements of international relations.' Raad stressed that he will not elaborate on commenting on "those who show hostility towards a Lebanese component that confronted and defeated the Zionist aggression, and the victor is the one who revealed the ugly image of the aggressor, who appeared to be practicing genocide against civilians, against children, against women, against safe homes and hospitals, destroying residential neighborhoods, and is an invading invader of the land who does not even have the right to defend himself." Raad concluded his statement by emphasizing Hezbollah's bet on "the will of the Lebanese people who adhere to their resistance option, which protects this country within the equation of the army, the people and the resistance, which is the realistic equation through which Lebanon can be proud that it protects its sovereignty." For its part, the Gathering of Lebanese National Parties, Forces and Figures expressed its strong condemnation of the blatant, provocative and insolent positions, which violate all diplomatic protocols, launched by the American envoy from in front of the Presidential Palace, and went so far as to "decide and dictate to Lebanon and the Lebanese who should and should not participate in the Lebanese government that is being formed." The Gathering of Parties stressed that "neither the American envoy nor any other foreign official has the right to attack the resistance Hezbollah and veto its participation in the government, because this, in addition to being a Lebanese affair, constitutes reprehensible interference in Lebanon's internal affairs." While the Gathering of Parties noted the Presidential Palace's haste to say that the American envoy's statement expresses its point of view, it called on the Lebanese and all those who care about sovereignty and national dignity to condemn this blatant attack on Lebanon and its sovereignty. The meeting of the parties concluded with the confirmation that Hezbollah "was not defeated as claimed by the American envoy, who visited the town of Shamaa as part of her tour in the south today, which is a witness to the inability of an entire division of the Zionist army to occupy it, or break the will and determination of its heroic resistance fighters, and that the party's weapons exist to resist the Zionist occupation, and as long as one inch of Lebanese land remains occupied, and as long as the Zionist dangers and ambitions continue, these weapons will remain a guarantee for liberating the land and protecting Lebanon." He concluded by saying: "Let this impudent woman know that Lebanon and its resistance fighters are facing Zionist terrorism, supported by her administration, which is considered the head of evil and terrorism in the world, and that the Lebanese people will not succumb to American pressures that aim to dominate the political decision in Lebanon, because in Lebanon there is a resistant people who love freedom and seek to live with pride and dignity." Later, the Assembly of Muslim Scholars in Lebanon considered that "the statements of the US Deputy Envoy to the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus, who is Zionist in affiliation, constitute a violation of diplomatic principles and an attack on Lebanon's sovereignty." The Assembly wondered in a statement, "How is it possible that this envoy, who is devoid of all diplomatic etiquette, would interfere in the formation of the Lebanese government, to announce that she refuses to represent a party that enjoys broad representation in the Lebanese parliament, and was elected by a significant popular majority? Doesn't that mean that we have entered an era of a new kind of guardianship? But, this time, it is not limited to the scenes, but rather appears directly on the stage of political operations, as well as military and security operations." It also rejected "the interference of the US representative in Lebanon's internal affairs," calling on "officials to inform her that Lebanon rejects any form of guardianship, especially in this blatant manner, and confirms, through its constitutional institutions, that it is the only party concerned with forming the government and determining its components." For his part, MP Hassan Ezzeddine, a member of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, called for putting an end to this dangerous excess in the statements of the US Deputy President's Envoy, which constitute dictation and blatant interference in Lebanon's internal affairs. In a direct and explicit message, the distinguished Jaafari Mufti Sheikh Ahmed Qabalan issued a statement addressed to the American envoy Ortagus, in which he stressed that "Lebanon is for the Lebanese only, and Hezbollah is a national and representative force the size of Lebanon and the partnership of its national components. Hezbollah has not been defeated and will not be defeated, and there is no force on earth that can eliminate it... Sovereignty belongs to Lebanon and its national components only, not to America and its projects of exclusion and destruction. Lebanon will not be a colony of America or "Israel". The game of threats and intimidation is empty, and the American-Zionist project, which was broken on the outskirts of the town of Khiyam, will not exist in the heart of the sovereign system in Lebanon." He added: "A government without a national duo is pushing the country towards the unknown, and beware of making a mistake with President Nabih Berri, because making a mistake with him is a disaster the size of Lebanon's charter base... We are not among those who retreat or abandon the duty of protecting Lebanon and securing its sovereignty, and everyone must remember that Lebanon is a graveyard for invaders and mercenary projects." In turn, the former Secretary-General of the Lebanese Communist Party, Dr. Khaled Haddadeh, considered in a statement that "the position of the office of the President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun, regarding the statement of Trump's representative, Morgan Ortagus, does not protect sovereignty, and the least that is required is to consider her undesirable and expel her from the country, and to ask her government to replace her." When he asked about the role of "the President-designate, the honest judge and the lover of reform, Nawaf Salam, he called on the Speaker of the Parliament and the representatives without exception, especially the sovereignists, the change-makers and the parties in all their formations, to confront this position, because that is much more important than the quotas and the entire government." Lebanese MP Yanal Solh condemned the statement of the American envoy, which indicates a blatant interference in Lebanon's internal affairs. He considered that "the words of the American envoy have nothing to do with political diplomacy, but rather are colonial words that indicate arrogant hegemony.. So where are the sovereignists in this talk?" Solh stressed that "Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese political and social fabric, and no one can ever cancel it or even ignore it... and if it weren't for the votes of the national duo, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, a president of the republic would not have been elected in Lebanon." He called on all political parties in Lebanon to "beware of the blatant, clear, and even impudent interference of the new US administration in Lebanon's internal affairs." In turn, the media office of the Lebanese presidency announced that some of what was issued by the US Deputy Envoy to the Middle East Morgan Ortagus from Baabda expresses her point of view. The media office stated via the "X" platform that the presidency is not concerned with it. Also, dozens of Lebanese citizens went out this evening in protest marches in the capital Beirut... expressing their rejection of the statements of the US Deputy Envoy and demanding an official Lebanese position to respond to these positions. Whatsapp Telegram Email Print more of (Reports)
