United States Lacks Strategic Clarity on the Horn of Africa

As the atrocities mount in Sudan and the humanitarian crises deepens, the United States is trying to correct its policy course. The appointment of a new special envoy to Sudan, a step the Biden administration had resisted for years, is widely expected in the very near term. Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of influential senators have introduced a resolution asserting that the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan are engaged in genocide, calling for urgent civilian protection efforts, and endorsing nontraditional pathways to get humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese people. Months of frustration are giving way to consensus that a shake-up is needed. Whether what is in the offing will be effective remains an open question. 

One place to start might be clearly articulating what the United States hopes to achieve—both in Sudan, and more broadly in the Horn of Africa, where issues of territorial integrity, nationalism, historical injustice, political violence, and constitutionalism are at stake in concrete and consequential ways. It’s entirely appropriate to have a near-term focus on ending the terrible suffering of the Sudanese people. But it will be difficult to accomplish that in any sustainable way without making some choices about the future we wish to see. Of course, the United States cannot dictate the course of events in the region, but a healthy respect for the limits of U.S. influence should not become a justification for a lack of strategic clarity. 

What are the United States’ most important priorities? What would be the best possible scenario ten years down the road for the United States in the Horn? Are the agendas of influential Gulf actors like the United Arab Emirates at odds with U.S. interests? Do the struggles of the subregional peace and security architecture matter to the U.S. vision of a reformed, rules-based order? Does the disruption in the Red Sea today, emanating largely from Yemen, clarify any new thinking about the nature of governance and security on that sea’s other coast? How does the United States envision its increasingly important relationship with Kenya proceeding should destabilizing trends sweeping through the region take hold there as well? 

Many close observers of U.S.-Africa policy are simply not sure what the United States government thinks about these questions, and neither are regional decision-makers. Any intentional ambiguity has reached a dangerous point of limited returns, as the lack of clarity is chalked up to indifference, tacit acceptance of the deteriorating status quo, and a desire to see other external powers exert decisive influence as they see fit in exchange for progress on some other objective. None of these explanations serve U.S. interests or position the United States well for the future. The United States doesn’t just need to state plainly what is happening in Sudan and call atrocities by their names. It needs to articulate its long-term priorities and a vision of U.S. relations with the Horn of the future, and pursue a diplomatic strategy aimed at nudging actors in that direction. In the absence of that vision, even the best-intentioned efforts at putting out the multiple fires raging in the Horn will yield only ephemeral results.