One of the strange repercussions of the current war in Sudan is that we have recently heard some people talking about an alternative capital to Khartoum, and there has been talk about Port Sudan as an alternative capital after Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan moved to it, following his exit from the siege at the General Command of the Armed Forces in Khartoum, and taking the city. Its headquarters and starting point for its internal and external movements. Ministers and officials preceded him there, in addition to a number of ambassadors and officials of international organizations shortly after the outbreak of the war. The city was also crowded with people fleeing the Khartoum war, and those who wanted it as a stop to travel to other countries.
This conversation also overlapped with the threats contained in an audio recording attributed to the Rapid Support Commander, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), that if Burhan forms a new government from his current headquarters in Port Sudan, the “Rapid Support” forces will announce a government in the areas under their control in Khartoum. The matter became more complicated after the limited clashes that took place last Monday in Port Sudan between the armed forces and armed members of a militia led by Shiba Dirar, a leader in the Beja tribe and head of the “Eastern Sudan Parties Alliance,” after members of it attempted to set up a point to inspect trucks and cars, which required intervention. army to prevent it.
Regardless of the simultaneity and interconnectedness between these developments, they remain a negative message about the curve of this war, which, if we look at the accumulation of its complications, may continue for a long time. However, if we take into account the recent statements of Lieutenant General Yasser Al-Atta, Assistant Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, it is in its final stages.
In any case, talk about two governments and two capitals is, in my opinion, nothing more than a card of pressure, tension, and maneuvers accompanying the stages of this war. There are no real elements that make the formation of a Rapid Support Forces government in Khartoum feasible on the ground. Despite their presence in several areas and neighborhoods in the three cities of the capital, especially in Khartoum and Khartoum Bahri, the Rapid Support Forces do not control the entire capital, nor do they have the capabilities to make any government they declare viable on the ground. Who among the active political forces can participate in such a government, and in circumstances like these, participation will become political suicide for anyone who undertakes it?
The second thing is that any such government will not have the ability to operate without known headquarters, infrastructure, and popular acceptance. In addition, it will be in the army’s crosshairs, which will make it a government on paper, Internet spaces, and social media chat rooms, rather than a real institution on the ground.
Some people talking about two governments and two capitals liken this to what happened in Yemen after the Houthis took control of the capital, Sanaa, and Aden became the seat of the legitimate, internationally recognized government. But there is a big difference between the status of Port Sudan as the temporary headquarters of the Sudanese government and the status of Sanaa and Aden, which were historically the capitals of two states before unification in 1990.
Khartoum remains the capital in the conscience of the Sudanese, and I do not think that this matter will change in these circumstances because of political maneuvers, nor even because of the massive destruction that befell it. Khartoum will undoubtedly rise after the war ends, beginning the arduous process of reconstruction and healing the wounds of war, which are many.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by the nuclear bomb in World War II, and the Japanese rebuilt them to become symbols of hope and resilience in the face of adversity.
Berlin was destroyed and divided in World War II, and was rebuilt into the western and eastern parts, before being reunited after the fall of the separation wall in 1989.
Baghdad was invaded by the Mongols, led by Hulagu, who destroyed its landmarks, plundered it, burned its libraries, and killed its people. It was subjected to occupation about 20 times, but it did not die, but rather it was rising from under the rubble to remain. Beirut was also destroyed more than once, and was rebuilt. History is full of examples of cities that were rebuilt after they were destroyed, such as Stalingrad, Warsaw, and Sarajevo, or that made progress in rebuilding them, such as Mosul, Aleppo, and Mogadishu.
My conviction is that Khartoum, too, will return through the efforts of its people, who persevered there despite the harsh conditions and intense suffering, or who left it under duress and did not think about anything except the moment they returned to it, and to their homes, despite the destruction. It is the type of city that cannot be replaced due to its symbolism and historical, political, social and geographical connotations. It is the center of the country and the melting pot in which all its components melt, and its squares and streets, with their names and symbols, carry much of the memory and history of Sudan. Despite the massive destruction that befell it, its reconstruction would, in my estimation, be the choice of most Sudanese who were associated with it and its unique location at the confluence of the Blue and White Nile.
Post-war reconstruction may be an opportunity to address the city’s chronic problems, correct some of the distortions, restore the corroded infrastructure, consider the negative effects of horizontal expansion, better distribute services, and how to confront the ongoing overpopulation and uncontrolled displacement coming from neighboring countries. It would be understandable, for example, for people to talk about taking advantage of the lessons of war to distribute factories to different cities in the country instead of piling them in Khartoum. Such thinking will create job and investment opportunities in other cities, and will also be a safety factor for the country and its economy, so that it is not paralyzed as happened in the current war, when the wheel of industrial production stopped, or most of it, when the factories crowded in the capital were destroyed and looted.
As for talk about an alternative capital, it does not seem realistic or logical, and it is a misreading of the temporary transfer of Al-Burhan and a number of ministers and officials to Port Sudan. This transfer took place because Port Sudan, with its port and airport, formed an outlet to the world, which is not available in the city of Wad Madani, for example, and not because the Sudanese stopped seeing Khartoum as the natural capital of their country… despite its plight and their current plight.
#alternative #capital #Khartoum
2023-09-21 10:04:07
