Can economic opportunity become a meaningful instrument of political leverage?

Sudan’s natural resources have long attracted external interest. Gold, oil, agricultural potential and other valuable commodities give the country considerable economic significance. Yet this wealth has not translated into security, stability or prosperity for much of its population.

The question is not simply who wants access to Sudan’s resources. It is whether international engagement can help change the incentives that sustain conflict, strengthen accountability and create conditions in which Sudan’s resources serve the interests of its people.

A recent legislative proposal in the United States offers an opportunity to examine that question.

A proposal linking resources with civilian protection

On 13 October 2026, US Representative Jim Baird introduced the Sudan Investing in Minerals, Partnership, Agriculture, Commerce, and Trade Act, known as the Sudan IMPACT Act. The proposed legislation would establish a partnership through which the United States could provide agricultural and mining equipment, technology and expertise in exchange for access to Sudanese natural resources.

Crucially, the partnership would be conditional. It would depend on the US Secretary of State determining that the required progress had been made in civilian protection, political stability and responsible management of natural resources.

The proposal remains at an early legislative stage. It has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It is not law, and no partnership has been established.

Nevertheless, the underlying idea deserves consideration: economic cooperation should not be entirely detached from the political and security conditions in which it takes place.

From commercial interest to responsible engagement

International engagement with Sudan has too often struggled to translate expressions of concern into changes in behaviour. Diplomatic statements, humanitarian assistance and calls for an end to the fighting remain necessary, but they do not automatically alter the calculations of those who sustain or benefit from conflict.

Economic relationships offer another potential instrument. Access to technology, expertise, investment and markets can create incentives. The question is whether those incentives can be used to support civilian protection, responsible resource management and conditions in which Sudanese people can determine their own political future.

The Sudan IMPACT Act attempts to connect economic opportunity with improvements in civilian protection and governance. In principle, this offers an opportunity to consider how commercial cooperation might contribute to a more accountable and peaceful future for Sudan.

But there is an important distinction between encouraging responsible conduct and attempting to determine another country’s political future. International engagement should not become a means of imposing a preferred political outcome, nor should external recognition alone determine who is entitled to govern.

The legitimacy of Sudan’s future political arrangements must ultimately rest with the Sudanese people. External partners can support the conditions necessary for that choice to be meaningful, including security, accountability and space for genuine political participation. They cannot substitute their own preferences for the choices of Sudanese people themselves.

Conditionality also raises practical questions. Who defines the conditions? Who independently assesses progress? And how consistently will the criteria be applied when commercial and strategic interests are at stake?

The test is not simply whether a proposal contains conditions. It is whether those conditions protect civilians, encourage responsible governance and respect Sudanese political agency — without becoming another instrument through which external powers seek to determine Sudan’s future.

Whose resources, and whose interests?

There is another question that deserves equal attention: who ultimately benefits?

Sudan’s natural resources should not be viewed merely as assets available to external powers seeking secure supplies of valuable commodities. They are part of the country’s economic inheritance and should contribute to its future recovery.

A responsible partnership would therefore need to consider transparency in resource extraction, the destination of revenues, environmental protection, workers’ safety and the distribution of economic benefits. It should also guard against arrangements that concentrate wealth among politically connected interests while leaving communities bearing the costs.

The exchange of equipment and ability for access to resources may offer practical advantages. Agricultural technology and irrigation could help strengthen productive capacity; improved mining technology could support safer operations and better environmental management.

Yet the benefits would depend on the terms of any eventual agreement, the institutions overseeing it and the safeguards protecting Sudanese interests. Access to resources is not, in itself, evidence of responsible development.

Nor should economic cooperation become a substitute for the harder work of rebuilding accountable institutions and establishing legitimate political authority.

The challenge of credibility

Even where the principles are clear, implementation raises difficult questions. How would progress be measured, and who would verify it?

Civilian protection cannot be assessed through declarations alone. Credible assessment would need to consider developments on the ground, including whether violence against civilians is declining, whether humanitarian access is improving and whether those responsible for abuses face meaningful accountability.

There is also a question of consistency. If economic benefits are made conditional on progress in Sudan, will the same principles be applied when commercial or strategic interests pull in another direction? Selective enforcement would undermine the credibility of the entire approach.

These are not reasons to dismiss the proposal. They are questions that must be answered before its potential contribution can be assessed.

One partnership cannot resolve a wider conflict

Sudan’s war cannot be addressed through a single economic initiative. Its continuation is shaped by domestic power struggles, external relationships, access to resources and the incentives available to those who continue the fighting.

A US-Sudan resource partnership, even if enacted, would form only one part of that wider picture. Its significance would depend partly on how it related to the policies of other governments, including those whose financial, commercial or diplomatic relationships may influence the parties to the conflict.

If international actors pursue competing approaches, the leverage available to any one of them may be limited. If economic engagement proceeds without regard to the wider conflict, it may produce commercial benefits without contributing meaningfully to peace.

This is why coordination matters. Civilian protection, diplomatic engagement, economic relationships and the scrutiny of external support should reinforce one another rather than operate as disconnected policy tracks.

The objective should not be to replace economic engagement with isolation. It should be to ensure that engagement contributes to conditions in which Sudanese people can live safely, participate in determining their country’s future and benefit from its resources.

From proposal to principle

The Sudan IMPACT Act is a proposal, not a demonstrated solution. Its introduction does not establish that it will pass, that an agreement will follow or that its conditions will produce the intended results.

But it raises a question that extends beyond the United States: can access to economic opportunity be used more deliberately to support civilian protection, responsible governance and a sustainable political settlement?

For Sudan Futures, the question is not whether every international initiative should be welcomed or dismissed, but how its incentives, interests and safeguards should be assessed.

Sudan does not lack strategic resources. It lacks a settlement capable of placing those resources within a framework of legitimate authority, accountability and public benefit.

International engagement will be judged not by the promises attached to it, but by whether it helps change the conditions that have made Sudan’s wealth coexist with such profound human suffering.

The question is not simply who gains access to Sudan’s resources, but whether international engagement can help ensure that Sudanese people ultimately benefit from them.

Sources and further reading
1. US Congress: Sudan Investing in Minerals, Partnership, Agriculture, Commerce, and Trade Act (H.R. 10795)⁠ — official bill text and legislative status.
2. Office of Congressman Jim Baird: Congressman Baird introduces the Sudan IMPACT Act⁠ — the sponsoring congressman’s announcement.
3. Sudan Tribune: US lawmaker introduces bill to tie Sudan minerals and farm pact to civilian protection⁠ — news coverage of the proposal.