Berlin… Relief or Engineering of Guardianship?

The Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shaglawi

The Berlin conference convenes tomorrow, April 15, following preparatory arrangements in Addis Ababa, with the participation of international and regional actors seeking to formulate an approach to the Sudanese crisis. This begins with de-escalation, opening humanitarian relief corridors and dialogue, leading toward a political vision for civilian transition and the future of governance.

However, this vision, despite its consensual language, reveals a central dilemma concerning who holds the authority to define the political process, and who determines its actors and boundaries. In this article, we attempt to read the scene by considering all positions.

The debate surrounding the conference deepens further when read in the context of its timing, as it intersects with a date heavily laden in Sudanese memory: the outbreak of war on April 15, 2023. This date has become associated in public consciousness with the country’s slide into its most dangerous phase—a war of existence that dismantled all national balances. This coincidence, even if procedural from the organizers’ perspective, is received domestically with high sensitivity, as it evokes the memory of an open wound that has yet to heal.

In this charged atmosphere, concerns are rising over the involvement of some Sudanese actors in regional and international arrangements that bypass national will, potentially reproducing an old pattern of managing crises through external means rather than addressing them internally. While some bet on an internationally supported settlement, internal forces see this as potentially reshaping the political landscape according to balances that do not reflect public sentiment, nor give sufficient consideration to the centrality of national decision-making at a time of war.

The humanitarian dimension of the conference intersects with this political trajectory, as mobilizing relief support is presented as a necessary entry point to address the consequences of war. However, Sudan’s experience in recent years shows that the relationship between relief and politics is no longer separate or neutral; rather, it has often become a space for overlapping standards and an opportunity to impose influence, where humanitarian response is linked to preconceived political visions regarding the form and components of the solution.

The Sudanese partisan landscape emerges as a key entry point to understanding the complexity of internal positions regarding the conference, as interpretations vary. The Democratic Unionist Party (Original) expressed reservations about the conference being held without the participation of the government or consultation with it, warning that bypassing state institutions would exacerbate the crisis rather than resolve it. It affirmed its openness to any initiatives that respect Sudan’s sovereignty and particularity, and adhere to the principle of a Sudanese-Sudanese solution based on inclusive dialogue without exclusion.

This position reflects a traditional tendency within a significant segment of Sudan’s political movement that sees the state as the center of legitimacy, and internal dialogue as the most sustainable path to any settlement, away from dictates and external pressures.

In parallel, positions from several political and civil forces emerge, considering the conference’s representation structurally imbalanced, whether in terms of the nature of invitees or the distribution of roles within the proposed political process.

In this context, the “Somoud” coalition, led by Dr. Abdalla Hamdok, welcomed the Berlin conference. It represents the broader extension of the “Taqaddum” coordination, which signed the Declaration of Principles in Addis Ababa (January 2024), and is viewed domestically as a political wing of the Rapid Support Forces, with the document remaining in effect without retreat.

The coalition considered the conference an opportunity to mobilize international support for peace, announcing its participation in a civil meeting aimed at stopping the war and launching a political process led by civilian forces, while affirming readiness to cooperate with all parties to end the war and restore peace.

This divergence within the Sudanese political landscape reflects a sharp polarization between forces aligned with the army and others supporting the militia, in the absence of a unifying reference. Meanwhile, the proposal to separate the military-security track from the political track has gained a degree of internal acceptance, based on what was previously adopted in the Jeddah Agreement on security and humanitarian arrangements on May 11, 2023, as an existing reference framework that can be built upon in any future consensus.

On the other hand, the statement of the Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs reflects a clear rejection of holding the conference without government participation, affirming adherence to the principle of sovereignty and rejecting any arrangements that bypass legitimate state institutions. This position goes beyond procedural aspects, emphasizing that any political process conducted outside the internal framework and away from the government remains vulnerable to imbalance, regardless of the level of international support it receives.

The Sudanese government’s objection to the conference being held without its participation represents a key point in understanding the nature of this international movement. The issue raises a fundamental question: can the crisis of a sovereign state be managed in isolation from its institutions? Or does this open the door to a precedent that reproduces models of guardianship under new titles?
In this context, a recurring pattern appears in the behavior of some international actors, relying on the use of the humanitarian file as an entry point to reshape political balances. Aid, which is supposed to be a moral obligation, becomes implicitly tied to engagement in specific political tracks, turning relief into a tool of pressure and placing national decision-making before a harsh equation: compliance or isolation.

The matter does not stop at politicization; it extends to what can be described as “coercive mediation,” where initiatives are presented as the only possible path, while national initiatives are overlooked. This unspoken exclusion reflects a structural bias in the design of the political process and raises legitimate questions about the neutrality of international platforms and their ability to produce sustainable solutions.

As for the civilian track, which is supposed to grant the conference societal legitimacy, it too appears governed by considerations of political selection, where certain groups are represented over others in a process closer to reshaping the “civilian voice” in line with international vision rather than real balances within Sudan. This threatens to transform civil society from a national mediator into a tool within external equations.

Deconstructing the humanitarian discourse surrounding the conference reveals a clear gap between statements and commitments, as warnings of the “worst humanitarian crisis in the world” are repeated while funding remains below required levels according to UN reports. This confirms that the tragedy is used more in rhetoric than addressed on the ground.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this trajectory is the attempt to recycle certain political forces accused of igniting the war through a failed coup attempt, by integrating them into peace arrangements without real accountability. This approach, based on “political normalization” with unaccountable actors, threatens the prospects of achieving justice and risks reproducing the crisis in a new form.

According to Face of Truth, the Berlin conference represents a test of the relationship between relief and politics, between humanitarian considerations and the requirements of sovereignty, and between the pursuit of ending the war and the risk of reproducing it through new tools. This test does not stop at the conference’s path, but extends to the ability of Sudanese themselves to reclaim the initiative, transforming their suffering from a file managed externally into a cause resolved internally, through a national consensus that redefines the meaning of a solution before searching for its tools.

Wishing you continued health and well-being.

Tuesday, April 14, 2026