Where Do The Tripartite Negotiations Lead Us?

Omer Mursal (Omerian) – Author
Omerianist@gmail.com
Tel: 0900222620

Tripartite Negotiation is UNITAMS, AU & IGAD initiative proposal that is committed to facilitating a national dialogue in Sudan, to reach out on a national consensus pact agreement forsake political-economic settlements in the country.

However, dozens of obsessions remain unanswered; like, Why do Sudanese need the tripartite negotiations? Are we dysfunctional to dissolve our domestic crisis? why there is a military coup? Have we already disowned and slippered from patriotism?

Why do our political partisans fail to conceive the voice of revolution? why do we have a political leadership disagreement, if we all believe in the interest of Sudan is above everything?

Do you think that international community intervention can play a role in our internal affairs settlements? Why do IGAD ( Intergovernmental Authority on Development), UNITAMS ( the United Nations Integrated Assistance Mission In Sudan), and AU ( African Union) propose a political initiative? And Is it revolving around the December Revolution Demands? Do you have any expectancy of the former regime constituents that could be part of Tripartite Negotiation? Why? how? And after all, do the coup members deserve a chance to involve in the coming government?

Generally, The main test facing the tripartite joint initiative in Sudan sponsored by the United Nations, the African Union, and the “IGAD” organization, brought the Sudanese parties to the negotiating table to reach a settlement to resolve the stifling crisis left by the military coup on October 25 and overthrowing the partnership With Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok’s civilian government.

Moreover, The main opposition coalition, “Freedom and Cange” which was ousted from power, conditioned its participation in the preparatory meeting called by the tripartite mechanism on the tenth of May this year, on identifying the parties that will involve in the dialogue and describing the correct approach to the crisis in ending the military rule and restoring the civilian path. Placing the military institution in the upcoming political scene, defining the civilian forces involve in managing the transitional phase, and the positions of the forces that reject a political settlement with the military, and adopt the option of overthrowing the coup. These are all contentious issues between the military and civilians and constitute obstacles to the tripartite initiative.

Meanwhile, Many representatives in the political scene believe that addressing these issues seriously could open the way to a political settlement or agreement, or their failure would prompt everyone to adopt other scenarios. The opposition forces claim that “the military’s assumption of power blocked the political horizon and pushed the political crisis toward more complexity. Their inability to resort to the use of excessive violence to suppress peaceful protests, and their involvement in killings the peaceful protesters.

 Nonetheless, there are complications in dealing with the military council, which has been holding the power since last October. However, They are surrounded by all aspects, and they are forced to withdraw and come up with a formula for handing the power to the civilians. In addition, The military do not have a clear plan, their coup did not find internal support or regional and international acceptance, and their policies disrupted the state and the economy and deteriorated the domestic security.

 As for the position of the street forces led by the Popular Resistance Committees, they completely reject any negotiation or partnership with the military and raise the slogan of overthrowing the coup. The leader of the Federal Union, who is also the official spokesman for the Central Council of the “Freedom of Change” coalition, Jaafar Hassan, says that “the purpose of any political process is to end the coup and return to the path of civil democratic transition, regardless of which means, whether through direct negotiation or indirect.” thus, Hassan divides the country’s political map into;

1. revolutionary forces that reject the military coup, represented by the Alliance for Freedom and Change, the Resistance Committees, and other civil forces, in addition to professional union bodies.
2. forces supporting the coup are concerned with the political process.

Meanwhile, He added that “the Alliance for Freedom and Change supports the initiative of The UN mission is ready to deal positively with it, but it will not participate in a dialogue without purpose, and without specifying the parties that will be involved.” at the same time, Hassan defined the coalition’s position, by nullifying “the coup and its procedures, through a new constitutional declaration that takes away the military, and their intervention on political affairs, and this does not mean a return to the previous constitutional document.”

Hassan also explained that the mission of the United Nations, African Union, and the IGAD organization is to facilitate the political process, not to play a mediating role, and therefore there is no room for imposing a specific vision on the parties.

Furthermore, Burhan’s military coup is unsustainable and faces internal and external pressures and an inability to manage the country. This situation is deadly unsustainable, so the military is forced to accept any settlement initiatives.

 What is more, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Tariq Abdul Majeed, says that the party will not participate in the meetings of the tripartite mechanism, and will work against the initiative, which will do nothing but reproduce the crisis in the country, calling on civil forces to refuse such participation. He added that those in charge of the initiative are not talking about handing over power to civilians, and this point is not on the table, but rather the initiative is looking for a new constitutional status somewhat similar to the previous partnership between the dissolved Transitional Military Council and the “Freedom and Change” coalition, a partnership that does not meet the aspirations of the Sudanese people.

 A spokesman from the resistance committees in Khartoum, Muhammad Anwar, says that any initiative that does not respond to the demands of the Sudanese the resistance committees to overthrow what they called the “coup military council” and retribution for the killing and wounded civilians, reveals the missing, and establish a full civil authority for the coming transitional period, and form One National Army. Nevertheless, Anwar added that the revolutionary forces and the resistance committees distinguish between the military institutions and the “revolutionary council”, so we adhere to our position of rejecting partnership with the military and we are working on mass escalation to bring them down and hold them accountable for the crimes that they committed.

In conclusion, Military institutions are part of state institutions, and they must be neutral, avoid political competition and conflict, and they must play their professional role in serving the country. He added, “As part of its recognition of this role, and the declaration of its readiness to hand over power to civilian forces that will manage the transitional phase through a handover and the process that can be sat down and negotiated with.

All in all, to obliterate such implications, hinders, and crisis in Sudan. We need to have built; The Rule Of Law of Secular State and Permanent Constitution.