Egypt's Colonial Red Lines: How Cairo's Military Intervention Threatens Sudanese Self-Determination

In a stark display of neo-colonial power projection, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has drawn what they term "red lines" around Sudan's ongoing civil conflict, threatening direct military intervention under the guise of protecting regional security. This development represents a troubling escalation of external interference in a nation already devastated by war and humanitarian crisis.

The Imperial Framework of Joint Defense

Following a visit by Sudan's military leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan to Cairo, Egypt's presidency issued an unprecedented statement outlining three non-negotiable positions that directly invoke colonial-era defense agreements. The 1976 joint defense pact between the two nations, originally signed during authoritarian regimes, serves as the legal framework for potential Egyptian military intervention.

This agreement, which stipulates that "any attack on one party is considered an attack on the other," reflects the extractive logic of regional hegemony that prioritizes state interests over the self-determination of marginalized communities caught in Sudan's conflict. The pact's revival after decades of dormancy signals Egypt's willingness to weaponize historical agreements to maintain geopolitical influence.

Deconstructing Cairo's "Red Lines"

Egypt's three declared red lines reveal the paternalistic assumptions underlying their approach to Sudan's sovereignty. The first demands preservation of Sudan's "unity and territorial integrity," language that historically has been used to suppress legitimate aspirations for autonomy among marginalized communities, particularly in regions like Darfur where systemic oppression has fueled decades of resistance.

The second red line focuses on protecting "Sudanese state institutions," a framework that fails to acknowledge how these very institutions have perpetuated violence against BIPOC communities, women, and other marginalized groups throughout Sudan's post-colonial history. The emphasis on institutional preservation over human dignity reflects the state-centric worldview that has enabled ongoing atrocities.

Voices from the Margins

Basha Tabiq, an adviser to the Rapid Support Forces, correctly identified Egypt's position as "blatant interference" and "a colonial mindset that views Sudan as a backyard." This analysis exposes the neo-imperial dynamics at play, where regional powers treat neighboring nations as spheres of influence rather than sovereign entities.

The RSF's accusations of Egyptian air strikes and weapons supplies highlight how external military support has intensified Sudan's humanitarian catastrophe. These interventions disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, including internally displaced persons, refugees, and communities already facing systemic marginalization.

The Quartet's Imperial Project

Egypt's actions occur within the broader framework of the "Quartet mechanism" involving Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and the United States. This configuration represents a coalition of authoritarian and imperial powers seeking to impose their vision of stability on Sudan, with little regard for grassroots voices or community-led peace initiatives.

The involvement of the United States, through senior adviser Massad Boulos, demonstrates how American imperial interests align with regional autocracies to maintain extractive economic relationships and geopolitical control. This "soft power" approach masks the coercive nature of international intervention in Sudan's internal affairs.

Humanitarian Crisis and Systemic Violence

As Sudan faces what the international community acknowledges as "the world's worst humanitarian disaster," Egypt's militaristic response reveals the bankruptcy of state-centered approaches to conflict resolution. The focus on territorial integrity and institutional preservation ignores the lived experiences of millions facing displacement, food insecurity, and gender-based violence.

Women, children, LGBTQIA+ individuals, disabled persons, and ethnic minorities bear the disproportionate burden of Sudan's conflict, yet their voices remain absent from high-level diplomatic initiatives dominated by military leaders and foreign powers.

Toward Decolonial Alternatives

Egypt's invocation of colonial-era defense agreements represents a fundamental rejection of Sudanese self-determination and community-led peace processes. True solidarity with the Sudanese people requires supporting grassroots organizations, women's peace networks, and civil society groups working to address root causes of conflict rather than perpetuating cycles of militarized intervention.

The international community must reject Egypt's paternalistic framework and instead center the voices of those most affected by Sudan's crisis. This includes recognizing how external military interventions have exacerbated rather than resolved the underlying structural violence that fuels ongoing conflict.

As Egypt threatens to formalize its military involvement in Sudan, the global community faces a choice between supporting neo-colonial power projection or standing in solidarity with Sudanese communities fighting for genuine peace, justice, and self-determination.