The Direct Negotiations Phobia

Osman Mirghani

The main reason for capitalizing on the crisis is that the Sudanese political parties lack the culture of productive negotiations. Our political parties look at the negotiations from the back mirror and not the front glass of the car. Our politicians look to the past more than to the future!

The difference between the two approaches is that recalling the past makes the politician sink into the political incriminate ions and detection of an error while looking to the future raises the levels of optimism and hope.

At last, the Trio mechanism (UNITAMS/AU/IGAD) which mediates the Sudanese parties’ disputes started its direct negotiations with the rivals.

Direct negotiations mean the entrance of the parties to the conflict in one hall to open the disputed agendas and start negotiations over them to reach an agreement that might not be acceptable to all, but will open the way for getting out of the political and economic dilemma.

Some political parties may reject entering the hall of the negotiations according to their evaluation of the feasibility of the talks, but it is not acceptable that such parties do not have any vision to resolve the crisis. Those who reject an available option should make their options for the appropriate solution.

But it seems that the Sudanese political parties found it easy to issue statements rejecting the direct negotiations and nothing more than that.

What is strange in our political scene that all are calling for Sudanese/Sudanese dialogue, and affirm that is it’s the only way that leads to coming out of the crisis; but despite that, it seems that the mission of the trio mechanism mission is difficult regarding assembling all the Sudanese parties inside one hall.

I believe that the solution to the Sudanese crisis could be completed in just one session if we change the approach by agreeing on the goals and the ends and then seeking the ways that lead to resolving the Sudanese prolonged crisis.

Back to top button