The speech of the Commander of the Rapid Support Forces, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, nicknamed Hemedti, which he delivered on the evening of Wednesday, October 9, seemed different from his previous speeches that he had been addressing to public opinion since the outbreak of the war on April 15. While the previous speeches were characterized by a degree of politicization and formulation that included clear political goals, objectives, and messages, the latest speech was devoid of that, as if the political mind that was standing behind it, putting ideas in its mind, and putting words in its mouth, had abandoned it, so it was devoid of any coherent idea whose premise was consistent. With her rings.
Among these is what he said that he “rejected the Framework Agreement signed on December 5, 2022,†and told its makers that he would “start a war,†but this rejection, which no one had heard of before today, did not prevent him from signing it and did not prevent him from defending it since the signing. Even before yesterday's speech, he was not deterred from gathering people around him, urging them to do so, and protecting his supporters.
Despite his initial assessment that the framework agreement would cause war, he responded to its repercussions until war reached the point, and his correct assessment did not prevent him from waging it, without wondering for whose benefit is this war?! He went in a direction that contradicted his convictions, which indicates his commitment to a position that he hated, and that he was fighting a war in which he was the coercive and powerless instrument, and that he was convinced of the war and identified with it by pushing others, from the Americans, the Europeans, the people of the Quartet and the Trilateral, and the former envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General to Sudan, Volcker. Peretz, depending on the context of the speech.
Indicative of the fulfillment of the previous point, he accused, for the first time in this speech, his foreign partners of pushing him into war and abandoning him. He blames them with a high degree of rebuke by asking them, “Why were you pushed into war if you were satisfied with the return of the Islamic Movement and the National Congress? Then why did you destroy our country if you were going to retreat from Our support for eliminating the Islamic movement?
It is clear that the man’s hope for the continued support of those who stood by his side in the war began to decline, if not ceased, and for this reason he continued to blame and criticize countries that had always supported him and waited for the moment of his victory. This is one of the clearest expressions of a high degree of despair, and indicates an irony for most of his supporters, if not. Not all of them.
Perhaps the man was surprised by the waves of attacks and condemnations he faced from Western organizations and the press for the behavior of the Rapid Support in the war, knowing that these countries were being pushed towards war through the framework agreement, and not listening to his warning that this agreement was a recipe for war, and the reason was the man’s lack of knowledge of the laws of the game of nations, so when he was warning… From a war ignited by the framework agreement, he thought that the forces that stood behind him did not know that it was turning into war, and he did not know that one of the rules of the game was to stand behind a victorious lightning war, capable of rearranging the situation to their liking, but to continue paying the bill for a war whose end indicators were clear in terms of Profit and loss, as well as their heavy human cost, do not seem objective according to the rules of the game.
The result here is that the man condemned all of his political behavior by rushing into a war that he knew before it broke out that it was being prepared, and he exposed the makers of the framework agreement and its supporters, firstly, by his design to trigger a war, and secondly, he exposed them with what he saw as an abandonment of their support for the war, with the aim of thwarting the attempts of the Islamic movement to return to power. Perhaps with this exposure and censure, he wanted to blackmail them into continuing to support the war.
In his speech, the man was dominated by the influence of racism at its highest levels. He blames Sovereignty Council member Ibrahim Jaber, not because he did not stand with him for common political convictions, as is the case with logic and objectivity, but because Jaber – according to Hemedti’s text – “did not take into account the relationship of blood, in the sense of tribal kinship that He brought them together, and he did not appreciate the services that Hemedti provided him.â€
I think that Ibrahim Jaber is breathing a sigh of relief, and smiling with relief at the signing of the speech that absolved him of what many whispered about him disparaging his loyalty to the army, in the belief of loyalty to his blood relatives with Hemeti. The speech was launched into a higher racist outburst in which it restored the planning and management of the war to the Shaiqiya tribe, without realizing the advantage it had given this tribe, as it was able, according to the meaning of the words of the speech, to drag all the people behind it with fairness and objectivity in supporting the army, and it achieved this mobilization that included all the people of this country. Its painful results.
The same medal that he pinned on Al-Shaiqiya’s forehead was awarded to the Islamic Movement for saying that “they have been fighting the supporters of the Islamic Movement since the beginning of the war, and that the popular resistance is the Islamic Movement.†He regretted the ability of this movement to convince the international community that what happened on April 15, 2023 was Rapid Support coup against the army.
Of course, if people believe that the force behind the army is the Islamic movement, and with it the army achieved these advanced goals in the war and came close to winning it decisively, then this movement is not only worthy of ruling Sudan, but it therefore enjoys unprecedented popular support in the country. This deserves to push the forces that established the framework, internationally and regionally, which led to the war, according to Hemedti. (Pushing these forces) not only to withdraw from the framework agreement in meaning and context, but to contact and negotiate with the Islamic movement, given the impossibility of overcoming it in the Sudanese reality after the goal of the framework. To perpetuate her isolation.
In any case, the popular rally around the army gives those who support it the honor of having a correct position on history, and by Hemedti labeling this movement as supporting the army, or even at the forefront of its fighters, he has repositioned it in a place worthy of popular appreciation.
The political consequence of Hemedti’s assertion that the framework agreement was what sparked the war pits the man against the Forces of Freedom and Change and its new version, “Progress.â€
With this statement, the position that united them was split, which was to deny that the framework had caused the war, and the knot that had bound them was broken, and to acknowledge that the framework agreement was what caused the war, putting it in the same position with the Islamic movement and other national forces, which now share the same analysis in the framework’s cause of the war. The war, and by logical consequence, imposes on him the necessity of retreating from the framework politically, and retreating from the war as a logical consequence of his early awareness of the error of waging it in defense of the framework agreement.
How can it be rational to be sure that the framework agreement is what caused the war, and to continue it as a political project, and to continue the war that it produced, unless of course this is a case of continuing the weakness of political experience that Hemedti complained about at the beginning of his time in politics after the fall of Al-Bashir’s rule.
In the same way of thinking, the man lost Egypt, and prevented it from receiving loud amounts of rebuke from Sudanese public opinion that it had abandoned Sudan, and its position was not appropriate for relations in their fraternal dimension, nor its strategic assessment, considering Sudan its vital field and the most important elements of its national security, and thanks to Hemedti’s speech, the blame turned to Popular appreciation for the Egyptian role, not only for its sympathy, but also for fighting the war at its highest levels, and with its most powerful weapons. The Egyptian aviation is racing the Sudanese to the target bank set by the Sudanese army, according to Hemedti, and with the man’s claims about the Egyptian role, believe it or not, Hemedti demolished a wall of doubts. The blame between Egypt and Sudan, especially in its popular dimension, was based on many doubts and suspicions.
In his speech, Hemedti tried, in a tone that combined denial, apology, and concern, to refute the charges of assault, murder, looting, violating honor, and rape related to the Rapid Support, but that is no longer convincing, especially for all Sudanese, and it will not erase anything after the pictures of the dead in the villages of Al-Jazira State (Wad Al-Noura, Goz Al-Naqa, and Al-Andab). And others, or what happened in villages such as Jalanqi and East Dinder in Sennar State. With a deep feeling of losing the war, Hemedti announced Plan B and called on his supporters who had left the field to return urgently, and vowed to mobilize a million soldiers for the new phase of the war.
It is difficult to delve into the analysis of Hemedti’s speech with a political approach, and perhaps it is better to turn to the psychological context to understand the developments in the Rapid Support Commander’s speech, as the body language, the tone of voice, and the confusion of the content, without realizing its logical consequences, indicate suppressed anger and a deep feeling of betrayal by those who pushed for war. It is a release of psychological tension that expresses an acknowledgment of a tragic end to the war adventure, but the apparent expression is denial, containing a mixture of acknowledgment of defeat, avoiding confronting its scenes, and insistence on continuing on its path into the unknown.
The opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera Network.
Related Articles
Source link