Sudanese Officials Deny Intent for Regional Conflict with Ethiopia

Sudanese authorities have moved to clarify their diplomatic stance regarding the ongoing instability on their eastern border. Deputy head of the Sovereignty Council, Gen. Malik Agar, stated on Wednesday that his government does not seek a war with Ethiopia. This assertion comes amidst a period of heightened friction between the two nations, where diplomatic channels have been strained by conflicting narratives about military activities and border security.

The remarks were delivered at a media forum in Khartoum, serving as a direct response to recent accusations leveled by Sudanese military leadership. While acknowledging what Agar described as a hostile posture from Addis Ababa, he emphasized that the Sudanese Armed Forces aim to contain the current civil conflict within national borders. The statement underscores a strategic preference for avoiding a broader regional escalation, even as bilateral relations remain tense.

Accusations of Drone Support

The diplomatic friction is rooted in specific allegations made by Lt. Gen. Yasser al-Atta, the chief of staff of the Sudanese army. According to reports from Allafrica, al-Atta accused Ethiopia of exploiting Sudan’s internal war to annex border territory. He further claimed that Addis Ababa has permitted the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to launch drones from Ethiopian soil. These assertions followed a series of drone strikes reported in Sudan’s Blue Nile state, a region that shares a direct border with Ethiopia.

Ethiopian officials have consistently rejected these claims, labeling them as baseless and unsubstantiated. The Ethiopian government has denied facilitating arms transfers or providing training to the RSF, maintaining that it has no involvement in the internal conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary group. This divergence in narrative has complicated efforts to de-escalate tensions, with both sides citing security concerns along the porous border.

Territorial Integrity as Red Line

Gen. Agar framed the issue in terms of national sovereignty, stating that protecting Sudan’s territorial integrity is a non-negotiable red line for the army-aligned government. He reiterated the official position that Sudan must maintain a single, unified national army, rejecting any fragmentation of military authority. This stance is part of a broader effort to consolidate internal cohesion while managing external pressures from neighboring states.

The conflict, which began in April 2023, has already resulted in significant displacement and humanitarian crises. By explicitly stating that Sudan does not want the conflict to expand into a wider regional war, Khartoum appears to be signaling a desire to isolate the fighting. However, the persistent allegations of cross-border support suggest that the line between internal civil war and regional conflict remains blurred and highly volatile.

Historical Border Disputes Persist

The current tensions are not solely driven by the recent civil war but are also entangled with longstanding territorial disputes. The al-Fashaga agricultural area remains a point of contention between the two countries, with both claiming sovereignty over the land. Sudanese officials have repeatedly linked alleged RSF drone activity to these historic grievances, arguing that Ethiopia’s actions threaten their border security. Conversely, Ethiopia views its border positions through the lens of its own historical claims and strategic interests.

As fighting intensifies in Blue Nile, Darfur, and Kordofan, the risk of cross-border spillover increases. The material provided by GN auto geopolitics/africa: Sudan conflict highlights the complexity of the situation, where military actions in one state can trigger diplomatic and security responses in another. The forward question now lies in whether diplomatic channels can be restored to prevent these accusations from spiraling into direct military confrontation.