Negotiating peace in Sudan: much ado about nothing

By:mohyeldeen Mohamed mohyeldeen – researcher and political analyst

9 Months has elapsed since the outbreak of the war in Sudan. Although the war waged by the janjaweed militia had its consequences both regionally and internationally but the efforts to halt it seems to be lacking integrity and interest.
the role of regional and global international organizations involves seeking an end to the violence through achieving a ceasefire, providing and facilitating humanitarian aid and assistance, seeking a lasting political solution to the crisis, and addressing the root causes of the conflict. In the wake of the escalating violence that began in April, regional and international organizations have focused their efforts on short-term outcomes such as getting the warring parties—the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces militia (RSF)—to agree to a ceasefire and allow delivery of humanitarian aid. The larger issues, including finding a lasting political solution, have, for now, been put on the back burner.
There are a number of regional and international organizations involved in addressing the crisis in Sudan. Aside from the United Nations (UN), several regional organizations in which Sudan holds membership, including the African Union (AU), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the Arab League, have responded to the crisis in different ways. Regional organizations have been more active in undertaking mediation efforts, But for sure none was able to put something genuine in the table. That was so because of the conflicting agenda among its member states.
On the day following the eruption of the crisis, IGAD appointed a high-level mediation delegation led by South Sudanese President Salva Kiir Mayardit. An IGAD “quartet” comprising Kenya (chair), Djibouti, Ethiopia, and South Sudan has tried to get the head of the sovereignty council and the Janjaweed chief to meet face to face and cease hostilities. While The AU established an “extended mechanism” for the crisis, involving various regional and external actors. Both organizations have determined separate “roadmaps” for the resolution of the crisis, and both of them fall short from proceeding with their initiatives. That was due to logical , compiling reason; the AU has decided since 2020 to suspend Sudan membership after the head of the military dissolved the FFC government due to much disagreement over handling the civilian military partnership.
A quartet – made up of the leaders of Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Djibouti – was appointed to seek a ceasefire, humanitarian access and political dialogue in order to restore Sudan’s transition to democracy.
The IGAD ignored Sudan reservation on Kenya presiding over the quartet. Kenya’s president is a close business partner to the Janjaweed leader, hence he is taking side in a manner that contradict the principle of balance, integrity and impartiality in mediation . That insistence to give an allay to the militia the upper hand in the search for peace , against the will of a full member state, give negative signs, and put the organization impartiality at stake. So Sudan decided to cease dealing with IGAD and its peace initiative.
The US and Saudi Arabia, from their part, seem to have failed to convince the militia to implement what have been agreed upon in Jeddah . they still call for another round of talks without clarification on the fate of the agreement of principles, formerly signed. They have also made efforts to bring the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on board, which is significant because the UAE is seen as the major backer of the RSF militia and, according to some reports, continues to arm them. The UAE has to prove its neutrality by refraining from siding with the notorious Janjaweed militia , if they are keen to be part of any genuine peace process.
What is very impressing the call for including the civilian in the negotiations. This call open the debate over the role of the FFC in siding with the militia. The Sudanese accuses the leaders of some of the civilian parties of siding with janjaweed militia referring to the forces for freedom and change, who used to show animosity against the armed forces .
Fairly enough to say that an “inclusive political process is necessary on the medium run , but stopping the war and halting hostilities is the first priority. After achieving peace and restoring tranquility in Sudan, such dialogue seem to requires bringing civilian representatives together, and giving them enough political backing so that they have real leverage in talks, as part of efforts to ensure that Sudan returns to the path of real democracy.
Its widely believed that Multiple, parallel efforts to address the crisis, have raised fears of duplication and incoherence. To me, the peace from within is better, since any outside power intervention is aimed at achieving its interests. So its high time that the Sudanese people should address their problems and try to mend the broken pieces of their country. How? is a question that need to be answered by us all , without exceptions or exclusions.

Back to top button