Five key developments in international relations this week: 03-07 Feb 2025 🔍🌍

⚔️⚔️SITREP : Sudan conflict

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) maintained its string of successes in recent weeks, seizing control of Al Kamlin, the largest city in northern Al-Jazirah state, on 04 February. The SAF has also recaptured large parts of East Nile, as it continued advancing towards Khartoum via  the Soba and El Masid bridges (located between Khartoum North/Bahri and Khartoum).

The recapture of Khartoum is a strategic objective for the SAF that would not only bolster its claims as the only legitimate authority in the county, but also mark a turning point in the military balance of power in its favour. The next phase of SAF operations in the coming days will be aimed at capturing the remaining RSF-controlled areas of Khartoum and Omdurman, in addition to cutting off crucial supply lines to the RSF via key bridges and highways.

Earlier in the week, artillery fire on the state capital of South Kordofan state, Kadugli, on 03 February killed at least 40 people and wounded 70 others. The SAF commander in Kadugli blamed the attack on a  faction of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hilu, which also maintains a foothold in the state. The SPLM-N has at times tried to take advantage of the Sudanese military’s war against the RSF to strengthen its position in South Kordofan, and in doing so has clashed with both the military and the RSF at various points. Kadugli is under government/military control.

Elsewhere in South Darfur's capital, Nyala, a military air strike on the same day killed at least 25 people and wounded 63 others. The RSF controls most of the Darfur region, including Nyala, which lies 195 kilometres from el-Fasher, the besieged capital of North Darfur which is the only state in the region still under army control.

As I pointed out in last week’s update, the RSF could launch a major offensive to seize control of el-Fasher, with the aim of consolidating control over the entire Darfur region, while also offsetting setbacks and loss of territory in other parts of the country.

On the political front, Sudan’s largest civilian anti-war coalition, the Coordination of Civil Democratic Forces or Taqaddum, is facing deep internal divisions over whether to form a government-in-exile. Led by former Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok, Taqaddum was established in October 2023 to unify civilian opposition in the quest for a resolution to the ongoing conflict between the SAF and RSF.  Despite receiving significant international and local backing, the coalition has been plagued by divisions among its members over approach to negotiations as well as a political roadmap for the country’s future. Apart from these internal disputes, Taqaddum's leaders have faced constant attacks and accusations from SAF of being the political wing of the RSF.

The most recent debate has been centred around the proposal to establish a government-in-exile as a counter to the SAF-led transitional sovereign council in Port Sudan. Proponents argue a government-in-exile would provide a legitimate civilian authority as an alternative to the ruling military junta, whereas opponents contend that such a move could deepen divisions within the civilian front and complicate diplomatic efforts to end the war. This proposal has been discussed at least three times, including meetings in Addis Ababa and Entebbe, Uganda, but has failed to gain consensus. On 30 January, Taqaddum’s official spokesperson, Bakri Al-Jack, revealed that the coalition had agreed to separate individuals and entities advocating for an exiled government from those opposed, signalling a potential rupture.

Trade wars : Trump leverages his favourite tool of coercion on Canada, Mexico and China

President Trump initiated a new trade war on 01 February, announcing new tariffs on its three largest trading partners – Canada, Mexico and China. Per Trump’s Executive Order, Mexican and Canadian imports would face 25% tariffs — with the exception of energy from Canada, which will face 10% tariffs. Imports from China would face a 10 per cent tariff over and above existing US tariffs. The tariffs were justified by the White House as a response to the ‘extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs’ such as fentanyl, which constitute a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Shortly after the announcement of the tariffs, some of which were expected to take effect on 04 February, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced retaliatory measures that would put 25% tariffs on more than $100 billion worth of U.S. exports, including beer, food products and appliances. Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum said she also instructed the economy minister to kick off a response plan that includes retaliatory tariffs against the levies.

In a dramatic reversal, the  planned 25 percent tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports were postponed by a month after phone calls between Trump and the leaders of the two countries. Prime Minister Trudeau revealed that Canada would appoint a “fentanyl czar”, list Mexican cartels as terrorist groups, and launch a Canada-US Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering. For its part, Mexico agreed to send 10,000 troops to the border to help control the flow of drugs, and in return the U.S. will help to prevent gun trafficking to cartels.

In response to the U.S trade actions, China announced multiple retaliatory measures : 15% tariffs on coal and LNG, 10% tariffs on oil, machinery and vehicles, export controls on critical minerals, and an antitrust investigation into Google. The measures target $20 billion of US imports, compared to US tariffs affecting $450 billion of Chinese goods

Following the announcement, Asian and European stock markets fell as traders anticipated a potential global trade war. U.S. markets opened sharply lower on 03 February, with the S&P 500 dropping 1.4% shortly after trading began. An escalating tariff war would have a profound effect on global trade, disrupt supply chains, raising costs for businesses and heighten inflationary pressures. Some sectors such as the auto industry and manufacturing sectors, face severe exposure given how integrated the supply chain and manufacturing are with Mexico and Canada. A 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico will raise production costs for U.S. automakers, adding up to $3,000 to the price of some of the roughly sixteen million cars sold in the United States each year. Grocery costs could rise, too, as Mexico is the United States’ biggest source of fresh produce, supplying more than 60 percent of U.S. vegetable imports and nearly half of all fruit and nut imports.

Although US trade exposure remains relatively limited at 25% of GDP, a trade war could increasingly alienate trading partners, which could see the U.S being increasingly excluded from global trade agreements. The interdependent and complex nature of the global economy could also see ripple effects negatively impact key sectors of the U.S economy, such as energy, manufacturing and food.

There have been varied interpretations of Trump’s peculiar predilection to use tariffs as a bargaining tactic to assert dominance and extract concessions from trading partners. Other analysts are aligned with the framing of tariffs as a means of generating revenue, rebalancing trade deficits and strengthening domestic production. However, as the dealings with Mexico and Canada have shown, Trump seems to be using tariffs as a coercive, negotiating tool to get concessions in policy areas that are unrelated to trade – in this case, addressing illegal migration and drug trafficking. Nevertheless, there are long-term consequences – misuse of tariffs could set off a spiralling trade war as countries pursue retaliatory measures, in addition to significantly negative impacts on stability of global markets and consumer prices.

USAID facing overhaul amidst Trump’s administration’s shakeup of federal agencies

The future of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is in doubt after its headquarters were unexpectedly closed on 03 February, with personnel ordered to work from home. The directive is part of broader moves by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – a non-governmental advisory committee co-chaired by tech billionaire Elon Musk that promises to cut federal spending, to streamline federal agencies and to curb wasteful expenditure.

The agency’s website has been shut down, all directly-hired staff placed on leave and some officials have lost access to emails, signals that the Trump administration was considering dismantling the agency and subsuming its functions under the US Department of State. Dismantling USAID is being framed as a cost-cutting measure, however the real reason may be ideological – its purported incompatibility with the Trump’s administration‘s America First agenda, with Musk portraying the agency as a ‘radical-left political psy op.’

USAID is an independent agency with about 10,000 employees worldwide that is responsible for administering US foreign aid and development programmes. It is the world’s largest single donor and in 2024, provided 42% of UN-tracked global humanitarian funding. Its provides development assistance across a range of programmes, including health and family planning, education, and democracy promotion among others.

The suggestion of folding USAID into the State Department has significant implications for U.S. foreign policy and global development efforts. Development and diplomacy, while sharing objectives, require different expertise, missions, and timelines. For instance, the folding of the foreign aid program into the foreign ministries of Canada and Australia has been assessed to have undercut the development function. There are also legal considerations –any reorganisation would require consultation with Congress due to existing laws governing executive branch structures. Some lawmakers have expressed concerns about the legality of bypassing congressional approval for such a merger  Furthermore, a weakened or dismantled USAID could diminish U.S. soft power and allow other nations to fill the void in providing development assistance. The void left by a receding U.S. will be filled by powers such as China which has already made strides in advancing its vision of a global community of shared future, premised on the Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative, as part of its inter-civilizational approach to global governance. Other emerging powers — India through its development partnerships, Gulf states via sovereign wealth funds, and Turkey through military-commercial engagement — are also moving to fill gaps in regions where US influence is waning.

🏛️European security and defence

EU leaders hold informal retreat in Brussels to discuss defence spending and capabilities

EU leaders met on 03 February in Brussels to discuss the future of defence, specifically on collective capabilities, means of financing, and strengthening partnerships with NATO and non-EU European allies. The meeting, chaired by European Council President Antonio Costa, was convened in a new format as an informal one-day leaders retreat.

The retreat comes against the backdrop of notable shifts in the geopolitical landscape, the Russia-Ukraine war, a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy towards the Indo-Pacific region and a rapidly evolving strategic environment. On defence spending, President Trump has criticised EU and NATO allies that are failing to spend the mandated 2% of their GDP on defence, calling for spending to be raised to a 5% threshold. According to the European Commission, the EU needs to invest €500 billion on defence over the next decade, in contrast to the €8 billion earmarked for the sector in the bloc’s 2021-2027 budget.

While there was broad consensus on which military capabilities should be prioritised, namely air defence, maritime defence, military mobility and strategic enablers, disagreements persist regarding who should acquire and control these capabilities. A related point of contention is whether to limit EU funding to the purchasing of European equipment, the so-called so-‘European preference’ advocated by France, or to allow for sourcing from the U.S arms industry. There are concerns that a strict ‘Buy European’ policy could exclude American-made weapons, such as the Patriot air defence missile, which are integral to initiatives like the Sky Shield program. A potential compromise involves earmarking funding towards equipment with a certain percentage (e.g. 65%) of components coming from the EU.

The thorniest issue remains the question of financing the defence budget in order to reach the desired levels. Options that have been put forward include flexibility in the bloc’s fiscal rules to allow member states to exclude defence spending from their national expenditures, issuing of Eurobonds, repurposing of unused money from other EU programmes, and the expansion of the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) mandate to allow for increased military spending. The EIB has already updated its mandate in 2024 to invest in dual-use projects and expects to double its investments in security and defence to €2 billion in 2025. Some frugal countries have opposed further expansion of EIB mandate to allow for joint borrowing to finance defence spending.

Although no major outcomes came out of the retreat, the discussions held could provide the European Commission with the guidance needed to finalise its White Paper on Defence, due on 19 March. EU leaders will have two months to review the Commission's proposals before their next meeting in late June, which will coincide with the annual NATO summit where revised spending thresholds and capabilities targets are expected to be unveiled.

🔶South Africa’s foreign policy

President Cyril Ramaphosa's State of the Nation 2025 – key issues relevant to foreign policy

On 06 February, President Ramaphosa delivered the State of the Nation Address (SONA) at Cape Town City Hall. The speech outlined various domestic and international challenges facing South Africa, emphasizing resilience and unity in navigating a rapidly changing global landscape. Below are key excerpts relevant to South Africa's foreign policy:

President Ramaphosa paid tribute to 14 soldiers who lost their lives while serving in the SAMIDRC mission.

He also underscored South Africa’s commitment to peace and security on the continent via contributions to multilateral peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions, as well as engagement in mediation and conflict resolution efforts.

He highlighted the centrality of the African agenda as a core tenet of South Africa’s foreign policy

The G20 presidency was highlighted as an opportunity to advance the interests of Africa and the Global South more broadly, in addition to a focus on global economic growth and sustainable development.

On solidarity with Palestine and the resolve to advance the cause for international justice

He also reiterated South Africa’s commitment to multilateralism and respect for international law

South Africa’s prioritisation of cooperation and diplomatic engagement with regional and international partners in pursuit of its foreign policy agenda

The imperative of balancing foreign policy objectives with domestic needs and national interest.

Economic diplomacy was highlighted as a key component of South Africa's foreign policy strategy

The overall tenor of the 2025 State of the Nation Address (SONA) was one of optimism and determination, with an emphasis on unity, economic growth, social transformation. The speech also signalled South Africa’s embrace of a proactive approach in the conduct of its foreign policy, included commitment to multilateralism and constructive engagement with a broad array of partners and stakeholders.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said he will skip the G20’s meeting of foreign ministers, scheduled for 20-21 February in Johannesburg. In a post on X, Rubio said “South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote ‘solidarity, equality, [and] sustainability.’ In other words: DEI and climate change,” adding  “My job is to advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism.”