During the transitional period, western governments were satisfied with Hamdok’s leadership, as he was implementing their policies of choice and paving the way for investment. They continued to support the implementation of economic liberalisation policies even as the conference on the country’s spending priorities was taking place. Interventions varied from tweets by the UK’s ambassador to Sudan shamelessly calling for de-subsidisation, to agreements between the IMF and the Sudanese government confirming the implementation of these policies, rendering the ongoing conference pointless and thereby showing total disregard for the will of the Sudanese people. This pattern continued in the aftermath of the coup. Calls for the total removal of the military from Sudanese politics were described as “unrealistic” by the US state department, while the UK ambassador put out a video calling for dialogue with the military generals. Indeed, the international community’s commitment to maintaining some form of military rule in Sudan went so far as to support an agreement between the military and the very same prime minister the military had overthrown late last year. Although the agreement meant keeping the generals in power, and was fiercely opposed by the people of Sudan, international diplomats, including the UN secretary general, kept calling on the people to accept it. They did not, nor did they stop protesting – and their protests led to the agreement’s collapse. This state of affairs – in which the Sudanese resistance calls for the creation of new, inclusive and sustainable forms of governance, while international governments continue to push for the implementation of their pre-set, counter-revolutionary plan – is still the basis of Sudanese politics today.
Muzan Alneel in The West is Waging War on the Sudanese Revolution (Novaramedia.com)