Egypt and Sudan...what we must agree on

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

The relationship between Egypt and Sudan today requires a degree of wisdom equal to the size of what links the two countries, and an awareness that the harm that may befall it goes beyond any passing disagreement or limited economic interest.

What was raised regarding the Sudanese gold prospectors, known as “Al-Dhahaba,” and the incidents in the border region, places before Cairo and Khartoum a joint responsibility to uncover the truth, protect lives and sovereignty, and reach understandings that prevent the crisis from spreading to the relationship between the two peoples.

The deaths of Sudanese victims, confirmed by the Sudanese authorities, require dealing seriously and respectfully with the families’ pain and their right to know. Meanwhile, disputed details regarding location and responsibilities need credible investigation. The more the two countries progressed in establishing the facts, the less space that could be occupied by exaggerations and unproven accusations, and the more it became possible to move from exchanging narratives to addressing the causes.

There has already been ground on which to build. The Sudanese Sovereignty Council announced the formation of a fact-finding committee, and confirmed that the two leaderships would continue to protect lives and maintain the relationship. Egypt announced that its campaign against illegal exploration is taking place within its borders, while confirming the depth of the ties between the two peoples. The two foreign ministers also stressed, during their call on the twelfth of this month (October), respect for the sovereignty of each country, the integrity of its territories and borders, and continued coordination and consultation.

In my opinion, these positions contain elements of agreement that are more important than what the atmosphere of tension suggests. The two countries can agree on the sanctity of life, respect borders, enforce the law, reject smuggling and unregulated exploration, and protect citizens from exploitation. What is required is to transform these principles into clear procedures, in which people can see their impact, and in which responsible authorities can find rules for action when a new problem arises.

Egypt has the right to protect its borders and regulate entry into its lands and exploitation of its resources. This is a right that should be clearly affirmed, especially in light of the turmoil caused by the Sudanese war. But the Egyptian interest also extends to the stability of Sudan, and the ability of its institutions to regulate economic activity and protect its citizens. Every advance in this capability helps Egypt secure its borders and reduces the possibility of a recurrence of incidents that create tension between the two sides.

The practical beginning is cooperation in uncovering the circumstances of the accident, exchanging information and evidence, determining the exact location, and documenting the victims and missing persons. This cooperation should lead to announced results, identify responsibilities, and address any proven error. Trust requires a truth that can be reassured, and the understanding that maintains the relationship must give those affected a feeling that their rights are preserved and that their voices are heard.

In parallel, urgent humanitarian measures can be agreed upon, such as facilitating the treatment of the injured, searching for missing persons, communicating with families, and organizing safe exit from dangerous sites. These are measures that Egypt can contribute to in coordination with Sudan, confirming in practice that protecting borders and protecting people are two interrelated responsibilities, and that the pain that befalls the Sudanese finds interest and solidarity in Egypt.

Here, the way the Egyptian position is presented remains of great importance. Talking about protecting the country’s wealth, no matter how legitimate it is, at the moment of casualties requires a careful arrangement of the message, so that it is not understood as a situation of gold in exchange for blood. Starting with sympathy, then explaining the facts and procedures, then affirming sovereignty and law, strengthens the Egyptian position and gives it greater ability to reach the Sudanese public. Empathizing with families opens the way for the rest of the message to be heard.

As for a permanent understanding, it requires coordination between the border, security, and judicial authorities responsible for mining. It can include quick communication channels, clarifying prohibited areas, informing worker groups of rules and risks, and arrangements for dealing with violations and civilian gatherings that respect the law and protect life. Each side must know what to undertake within its borders and how to cooperate with the other before a containable problem escalates.

In economic interests, there is always room to search for legal formulas that preserve the rights of states and take into account the needs of workers, as legislation and security considerations permit. The organization of activity, licenses, employment contracts, and trade channels deserves a joint study between the competent authorities. The most important thing is that these interests remain in their correct size, and do not become the factor that determines the fate of a strategic relationship that has dimensions much broader than a mineral resource.

The necessity of this understanding increases given the conditions of the region. In a region where conflicts, alliances, and interests are intertwined, every tension between two countries can be exploited into larger disputes. A local tragedy or unfulfilled narrative may be used to fuel political alignment, incite popular anger, or pressure one side. Therefore, the two countries should have the tools to address their differences, and maintain direct contact that limits the ability of others to reinterpret what is happening between them.

Cairo and Khartoum may differ in their assessment of a regional issue, or in their relations with other parties, with the bilateral relationship remaining governed by their common interests. It is necessary that neither the Egyptian nor the Sudanese be required to take a hostile stance towards the other in the service of a battle taking place elsewhere. Protecting the independence of decision-making in the two countries includes protecting the relationship between them from exploitation, and refusing to turn it into a pressure card in the region’s contradictions.

The media has a crucial role in this. Providing accurate information, separating facts from accusations, and hosting voices that know the nature of the two societies helps build understanding. Updating official information and answering legitimate questions also reduces room for rumors. As for generalizing and recalling every old dispute, they add damage that may remain after the incident itself ends. Any Egyptian or Sudanese citizen should feel that his dignity and security are preserved, regardless of what the platforms are circulating.

Egypt and Sudan have an opportunity to prove that the strength of the relationship appears in the ability to manage its difficult moments. What we need is an agreement that protects lives, preserves sovereignty, regulates interests, and prevents the repetition of the tragedy. Every joint step in this direction also protects the future of the two peoples from being determined by a misleading narrative or regional rivalry. This is a responsibility that deserves to advance the calculations of anger, and to become the basis of work between the two countries.