The drone war and the future of Sudan-Ethiopia relations: between military escalation and forced diplomacy.

By Ashraf Abdelaziz for Radio Dabanga

Sudanese-Ethiopian relations have reached a dangerous turning point, following explicit accusations by the Sudanese army that Addis Ababa was involved in drone attacks targeting Khartoum, apparently launched from Bahir Dar Airport. This has pushed the two countries to the brink of open confrontation, exceeding their traditional disputes over El Fashaga border region and the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).

This Sudanese escalation, which included recalling its ambassador for consultations and threatening the internationally guaranteed right to retaliate, was met with a firm Ethiopian rejection and a counter-diplomatic campaign. Ethiopia summoned Sudanese Ambassador Al-Zein Ibrahim Hussein for clarifications, while maintaining its neutrality regarding the Sudanese civil war and reminding Ethiopia of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s mediation efforts and initiatives to bridge the gap between the Sudanese leadership and regional parties.

Contrast

Political and diplomatic reactions within Sudan are marked by a clear divergence, reflecting the complexities of the field and geopolitical situation. Voices have emerged warning against sliding into an external military confrontation, given the depletion of the country’s resources in protracted civil wars in Darfur, Kordofan, and the Blue Nile. A political current led by Mr. Mubarak al-Fadil al-Mahdi believes that military escalation lacks strategic wisdom, considering the geographical nature of the conflict. Ethiopia’s mountainous borders give it a natural defensive advantage, contrasting with Sudan’s open plains, which contain vital infrastructure such as the Roseires and Khashm El Girba dams. This current warns that a policy of “bravado” could lead to national disasters, and points to the necessity of recalling the vision of Imam al-Sadiq al-Mahdi, who advocated avoiding direct confrontation with the eastern neighbour due to the sensitivity of the geographical and security overlap.

Legal steps

In contrast, diplomatic experts, including Ambassador Al-Sadiq, on Radio Dabanga, analyse the situation from the perspective of international norms, emphasizing that declaring the possession of evidence of external aggression necessitates taking legal steps, beginning with a complaint to the UN Security Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council, before considering a military response. However, questions remain regarding the timing of this escalation and the Sudanese state’s capacity to open an external front while engaged in fierce internal battles, especially since similar accusations regarding the fall of Kurmuk did not lead to the same level of diplomatic escalation. This suggests that the current crisis may have reached levels of complexity that transcend isolated border incidents, evolving into a broader regional power struggle in which demonstrations are being used as tools of political and military pressure.

According to current analytical readings, the only way to avoid a full-blown explosion is to return to the table of direct negotiations and activate intelligence and diplomatic channels to address the outstanding issues, with the need for both parties to realize that the cost of direct confrontation will be exorbitant for both peoples, and that exploiting border lands in the Benishangul region or elsewhere to launch attacks will further complicate the water and security situation related to the Renaissance Dam, which makes the option of preventive diplomacy and acting wisely an inevitable necessity that transcends the language of threats and intimidation that has dominated official discourse recently.