The anti-government protests that erupted in different cities across Sudan on December 19, 2018, rapidly evolved into a mass popular movement that started to threaten the rule of Omar al-Bashir, who had been in power in the country for three decades. Increasing pressure on the government in Khartoum forced Al-Bashir to seek for regional and international support that would help him keep his grip on power. As part of these efforts, Al-Bashir made visits to regional countries, including Qatar and Egypt, as well as war-torn Syria. He became the first leader to meet with Bashar Assad since the start of the civil war in Syria in 2011. While all these countries, and others such as Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia expressed support for the continuation of Al-Bashir’s rule, the Sudanese people continued to protest against the government.

As the protests grew, pressure on the Al-Bashir regime intensified. Thousands of demonstrators gathered around the Ministry of Defense and the headquarters of the Sudanese Army in the capital Khartoum and called for the resignation of Al-Bashir. Protestors even called the military to dismiss him from his position. These developments opened a new chapter in the country’s history. On the morning of April 11, the Defense Minister, Awad Ibn Auf, made a televised address and said: “I announce as minister of defense the toppling of the regime and detaining its chief in a secure place.” Ibn Auf also stated that President Al-Bashir has been removed from his duties and that a transitional military council, which will be headed by Auf himself, would govern the country. Following two years of a transitional period, democratic elections will be held, leading the country to civilian rule.

Increasing pressure on the government in Khartoum forced Al-Bashir to seek for regional and international support that would help him keep his grip on power. As part of these efforts, Al-Bashir made visits to regional countries, including Qatar and Egypt, as well as war-torn Syria.

It can be argued that the motivations of protestors that led the toppling of the Al-Bashir government were similar to that of the masses during the Arab revolution protests that began in December 2010 in Tunisia, and which followed in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. The main motivations of these revolutionary movements were establishing democratic political systems, respect for rights and freedoms, the elimination of economic problems and the tackling of income inequality. Such motivations were also present in the protest movement that led to the termination of a 30 year old regime in Sudan.

In addition, the methods and instruments utilized by Sudanese protestors were also similar to that of the Arab revolutions period. The masses gathered in largely peaceful protests and the youth played an important role in generating solid political opposition. The protestors also utilized social media and traditional media tools in order to make their voice heard both in and outside of the country. The military’s position was also crucial, as the army did not take a direct stance against the masses.

Just like the Arab uprisings that began in 2010, the main motivations of the revolutionary movement in Sudan are establishing a democratic political system, the respect for rights and freedoms, elimination of economic problems, and the tackling of income inequality. 

During the Arab revolutions period, each revolution attempt experienced a different path. Sudan has also been following a unique process. Although the military’s seizure of power cannot be considered as a revolutionary act, it is an important development that would eventually pave the way for a smooth transition rather than a civil war or institutionalized instability. Despite grip pictures coming from the country, the fall of the Al-Bashir regime would be considered as a change for the emergence of a new and civil regime in the country. As the Defense Minister reassured protestors for a democratic future, it is now the army’s responsibility to gradually rescind from political duties. These developments are a reminder of the early post-revolutionary period in Egypt as the transitional council led the country to elections less than a year following the fall of Hosni Mubarak. However, the democratization efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood were unsuccessful and the counter-revolutionary forces, including the Egyptian army, staged a military coup that led to the establishment of the most repressive regime in the country’s history.

For this reason, one of the biggest threats for the future of Sudan is the unwillingness of military actors to transfer power to civilian forces. Such a path would further destabilize the country and lead to increasing confrontation between revolutionary actors and counter-revolutionary forces. This possibility is strongly visible given the fact that regional countries that support the counter-revolutionary developments would be seeking the opportunity to establish an autocratic regime that would work for the failure of revolutionary forces in the country. This is the most serious threat that revolutionary actors would be facing in the upcoming period in Sudan.

The developments in Sudan are a reminder of the post-revolutionary period in Egypt, as the transitional council led the country to elections less than a year following the fall of Hosni Mubarak. However, democratization efforts were unsuccessful and led to the most repressive regime in the country’s history. 

Looking from the perspective of revolutionary forces, the developments in Sudan prove the fact that the possibility of social uprisings is still a reality and should be expected in any country that is oppressive, corrupt, unaccountable and undemocratic. For this reason, the counter-revolutionary actors are still making every effort to eliminate the potential of revolutionary uprisings in the region. These counter-revolutionary forces, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, even try to punish countries such as Turkey and Qatar, which are supportive of the revolutionary processes in the region.

For this reason, it can be argued that the protest movements in Sudan and Algeria have seriously disturbed these counter-revolutionary actors that perceived such developments as direct threats to the regional status quo. Therefore, it is of great importance for revolutionary actors to put pressure on military powers to hand over power to civilian administrators. This is also a responsibility of the Sudanese and Algerian armies – if they are to contribute to the successful revolutionary transformations of their countries.

Although it’s been over 8 years since the beginning of the Arab revolutions, the developments in Sudan show that revolutionary appetite is still alive across the Middle East and the Arab world. Social unrest and the toppling of long-time leaderships in Algeria and Sudan, civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the on-going competition and power struggle in regional politics, and the continuing dissatisfaction of the Arab masses illustrates that Middle East politics will continue to witness popular uprisings in the coming years.

The ongoing protests in Algeria are regarded as reminders of the early days of the Arab revolutions in 2011, when millions poured to the streets in many countries across the Middle East. The protests had caused regime changes in countries like Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. One of the most important organized movements during the revolutionary uprisings was the Muslim Brotherhood. The movement was actively engaged in political transformation in both Egypt and Tunisia. Despite the fact that the movement has been going through a bitter experience in Egypt since 2013, it is trying to be part of the political struggle in Algeria.

As the country experiences a postponed revolutionary moment since February this year, the Muslim Brotherhood has been trying to gain more ground in the country’s political spectrum. Since the start of the Arab revolutions in 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood movement has been following an active agenda in the country’s political transformation. Will the movement ever have the chance to lead the country to becoming a full-fledged democratic setting?

Although it has not been deeply engaged in the country’s political life for many years, the Muslim Brotherhood has a long history in Algeria. Sheikh Ahmed Sahnoun was one of the intellectuals of the period that founded the movement in 1953. Despite the fact that the movement did not have a significant presence in the country’s independence war against France, Muslim Brotherhood members made efforts to motivate the Algerian people during this period.

Will the Muslim Brotherhood ever have the chance to lead Algeria to becoming a full-fledged democracy? 

Following independence, the movement kept a low profile in the country’s volatile political environment. During the 1980s, as tension between Islamist groups and the government increased, the Muslim Brotherhood did not have a sharp stance (unlike other conservative Islamic movements). Some groups called for an Islamic state at the time, but the Muslim Brotherhood leadership did not. Tensions between the regime and Islamic groups increased especially in the late 80s. During the 1990 election, the Islamic coalition, which included a minor Muslim Brotherhood group, Nahda, gained 70% of the total votes. This was a turning point in the country’s history as the army cancelled the elections. The following period was a catastrophe for Algeria, as the country was dragged into a decade-long civil war.

During the civil war, the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria did not position itself against the army. In contrast, it followed a political pragmatist approach by siding with state institutions. The leading organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Movement of Society for Peace (MSP) was established during these years. In return to its loyalty to the state, in 1995, the MSP was given political ranks by the Algerian state. In 1997, both Nahda and MSP ran for parliamentary elections and won a total of 15% of the vote, with 69 seats in the parliament. Following the election, together with two secular political parties, the MSP became a member of the political coalition that governed the country for about two decades. As a coalition member, the MSP was given 7 ministerial positions and in 2004, the group supported the continuation of the Abdel Aziz Bouteflika presidency for another term.

Despite years-long pragmatist alliances with secular ruling elites and the army, the Muslim Brotherhood took a different political stance in the post-Arab revolutions period. The organization believed that the wave of uprisings in the region must pressure the Algerian regime for democratic reforms. Due to its increasing disagreements with the establishment in Algeria, MSP announced its withdrawal from the coalition in 2012. It can be argued that one of the most important factors in this decision was the early success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia. With a new discourse and activism, the movement also wanted to frame itself as a moderate organization that can play a leading role in the country’s democratization process.

In the post-Arab revolutions period, MSP became more aggressive in terms of its political discourse. In 2012, the then leader of the movement, Bouguerra Soltani, stated that the revolutionary wave would eventually arrive to Algeria if the political leadership cannot complete political reforms demanded by the people. The movement also harshly criticized Israeli policies towards Palestine and commented against the regional policy choices of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The political stance adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the ongoing political protests against President Bouteflika in Algeria illustrate that the organization will no longer keep a low profile in the country’s political arena. 

Finally, MSP also actively supported anti-government protests that started in February 2019, when Abdel Aziz Bouteflika announced his candidacy for a fifth term in office. The MSP leadership called on President Bouteflika to resign immediately. The leader of the movement, Abdul Rezzaq Al-Makri, stated that the ruling elite should take into account the demands of the people and stressed that the tension in the country would increase and that political instability would deepen.

These statements and the aggressive stance adopted by the movement illustrates that the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria will no longer keep a low profile in the country’s political arena. It can be argued that the organization wants to play a more important role in the future of Algerian politics. The movement’s decision to nominate a candidate in the presidential election for the first time indicates that the Muslim Brotherhood aims to become a political force for a change in the country.

Despite Bouteflika’s announcement of postponing elections, protests have been continuing throughout the country. People have demanded the resignation of the president and have called for new free and fair elections to take place. Both the continuation of protests and the determination of protesters highlights that the country’s political realm will be a scene of historical developments in the coming period. As one of the most organized social and political forces, the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to play an important role in this political transformation.

During an interview with the Saudi newspaper Asharq al-Awsat on October 28, 2017, Steve Bannon named Turkey as the biggest threat to the US. While this approach has many reasons, it is not independent from the influence of money from the Persian Gulf. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is said to have supported Steve Bannon financially and the UAE is considered to be Turkey’s biggest and yet mostly ignored political competitor in the Middle East.

While the international focus is more upon the rivalry between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the rivalry between Turkey and the UAE is more decisive. Turkey as a non-Arab state with the cultural heritage of the former Ottoman Empire and the UAE as the bastion of authoritarianism and symbol for an extremely luxurious lifestyle, are two actors that combat each other on every political stage from Europe, Africa to the Middle East.

While Saudi Arabia and the UAE form the so called “axis of the status quo” promoting authoritarian regimes, Qatar and Turkey work together in the “revolutionary axis” supporting popular democracy movements in the Middle East.

Turkey and UAE relations before the 2011 Arab Uprisings

Turkey – UAE relations have not been so important in the past, and it is fair to state that both sides only met each other following the Arab uprisings in 2011. Turkey on its part mainly focused on the European Union and the United States before the AK Party came to power in 2001. As a NATO member, Turkey had played its important role in the alliance, mainly taking into account regional western interests. Political and economic relations with Middle Eastern countries were present, but Turkey’s main focus was on the west.

On the other hand, the UAE mainly focused on internal issues and had an international policy advocating diplomacy and diplomatic solutions – it still views foreign policy from the prism of domestic issues. Before the Arab uprisings in 2011, the UAE had invested in relations within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and even tried to solve its dispute with Iran over three islands with diplomacy in order to avoid a political crisis with Tehran. In 1980, the UAE mediated between Egypt and Libya on one side and Oman and South Yemen on the other. Until 2011, the UAE tried to stay neutral on the international stage while focusing on its own economy. One important exception was the oil-crisis in 1973 when the UAE sided with Saudi Arabia. Turkey and the UAE have both become more involved in regional affairs with their new economic stability. All in all, there was hardly any economic interweaving between the two countries.

One commonality of the UAE and Turkey is that they both have achieved an important economic growth, which has inevitably strengthened them. While Turkey expanded its economy from $151 billion in 1990 to $833 billion in 2011, by heavily investing in profits made from oil, the UAE expanded its economy from $51 billion in 1990 to $351 billion in 2011. While Turkey’s GDP slightly improved to $858 billion in 2016, GDP of the UAE slightly decreased to $349 billion in 2016. Nevertheless, both countries are trying to transform their economic prosperity into regional influence.

Rivalry after the Arab Uprisings

The rivalry between Turkey and the UAE has intensified since the Arab uprisings. While Turkey positioned itself as one of the most important supporters of popular conservative movements that favor democracy in the Middle East, the UAE has taken the side in support of established authoritarian regimes as part of counter measures. Turkey’s position also meant support for the Muslim Brotherhood, which also enjoys popular support throughout the Middle East. While Turkey had Qatar on its side, the UAE strengthened its position with the help of Riyadh. This rivalry is evident all over the Middle East.

What the UAE fears most is democracy, as this would question the authoritarian system of rule in the country. A survey conducted by the Washington Institute think tank at the end of 2014 illustrated that the Muslim Brotherhood is rated positively by around one-third of the population in Gulf countries.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Arab uprisings are not yet over. While one may argue that this battle between the two axes of Sunni Muslims in the Middle East may be unimportant now, it is simply the opposite.

The rivalry following the Arab uprisings has seen its pick in Egypt. The UAE rejected the Morsi government and supported the Abdelfattah Sisi military coup-government, while Turkey supported the democratically elected Morsi government (the first ever democratically elected government in the history of Egypt). The ambassador of the UAE in Ankara went back to the UAE for ‘holidays’ and didn‘t return to Turkey until 2016. The political conflict in Egypt is permanent and still ongoing, especially as Turkey still rejects political relations with the Sisi regime and the UAE continues to provide financial support.

Another important point was the coup attempt by Gulenist criminal cult members on July 15 last year, which was prevented due to massive opposition from the people and police in Turkey. The oil-rich sheikhs in the UAE allegedly funneled $3 billion to the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETO) in order to encourage them to destabilize Turkey from within. Additionally, leaked e-mails from Yousef Al-Otaiba, UAE ambassador to the United States, revealed that the UAE could have been involved in the coup attempt of July 15. More, during the Qatar crisis, the UAE positioned itself as a pioneer of Qatar’s isolation, while Turkey expanded its military presence in Qatar and supported the government.

The conflict also spilled over to Libya, where a Muslim Brotherhood-led government was formed after the coup against Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Turkey, which keeps good ties with the powerful leadership of Misrata, which mainly forms the military operations room “Bunyan al-Marsous” for the government in Tripolis, was dragged into a confrontation with General Khalifa Haftar. With the help of Egypt and the UAE, in 2014 Haftar established a rival administration in Tobruk, which challenges the internationally recognized “unity government.” While Turkey and Qatar never directly intervened in Libya, Egypt and the UAE did. Besides warplane raids in support of Haftar, the UAE and Egypt have and still continue to arm Haftar militias. In addition, with the cooperation of France, the UAE established a military base in Haftar-controlled territory.

Turkey has built a military camp in Somalia in order to train up to 10,000 Somalian army soldiers. Turkish aid organizations, a Turkish hospital in Mogadishu and educational opportunities for Somali civilians have given Turkey a prominent position in Mogadishu. The Turkish company Albayrak manages the Mogadishu seaport. Like Turkey, the UAE is also pursuing similar contacts in Somalia. More interestingly, the UAE is again undermining an internationally recognized government this time in Mogadishu. It supports the self-declared state of Somaliland that competes with Mogadishu for control over the strategic north of the country, which oversees the Gulf of Aden.

While the base is still being constructed in Berbera, located 100km north east of the capital, Hargeisa, UAE ships have already started docking at its deep-water port.

As both countries decided to separate business from geopolitics, despite political controversies, financial relations between Turkey and the UAE seem to be positive. Both countries are certainly increasing their exchange within the defense industries. The UAE has purchased many armament products produced in Turkey and the two have signed a contract to increase cooperation in defense industries. The UAE, alongside Saudi Arabia are the main clients of Turkish armament products.

During the International Defence Exhibition & Conference in Abu Dhabi at the end of February 2017, the Turkish company Otokar signed an agreement with the armed forces of the United Arab Emirates for the construction of an armored infantry vehicle of the Arma 8×8 type with a value of 661 million US dollars. One of the main reasons for the UAE to buy weapons from Turkey is the price-quality index. While Turkish armament products fulfil NATO-standards, they are much cheaper than products of other NATO members.

Relations between Turkey and the UAE are complicated. While both sides have relatively good relations with each other, the regional power struggle over influence in the Middle East will shape future relations. While Turkey can be described as a successful democratic project in the Middle East, which is questioning authoritarian regimes in the region, the UAE fears nothing more than democracy. The hidden competition between both sides is more decisive than the competition between Qatar and Saudi-Arabia. From Somalia, Libya, Europe to the Gulf, the UAE and Turkey have different agendas. Nevertheless, due to gains that can be made in defense industries, both sides try to maintain satisfactory bilateral relations.