Dehai News

Three events this month were related to stopping the war in Sudan. Each one addressed the issue from a different angle.

The first was the Sudanese Political and Civil Forces Conference, which was held in Cairo on 6 July. The conference sent positive signals that must be considered, as it brought together, for the first time since the outbreak of the war in April last year, the civil and political groups that have previously clashed violently. This had suggested that they would never meet together in one room, but they did meet under the auspices of Sudanese facilitators, while Egypt’s role was focused, thankfully, on providing the necessary logistics for the success of the meeting.

Another positive sign was that the group leaders gave up addressing the conference individually in favour of one speech delivered on behalf of all of them. Then there was the presence of representatives from all of the blocs in a joint meeting and they managed to agree on the final statement, although some factions withdrew from it later.

The most positive sign, in my view, was that everyone agreed on a mechanism or committee of Sudanese facilitators to communicate with everyone and suggest the next steps.

I believe that the conference could not have achieved more than that, so what it did achieve is a first step in the search for a common vision for civil society on how to stop the war. The main responsibility for ending the war falls on civil society, as it is entrusted with answering questions about the future of the army leadership, the future of the Rapid Support Forces and other militias, and accountability for the crime of the outbreak of war and the violations that have been committed. Civil society must also address the worsening humanitarian crisis in Sudan, and reach a consensus on the civilian-led transition period without partners from either of the warring parties. This is in addition to other elements of the political process without which the war will not end.

The second event is taking place now in Geneva under the auspices of the UN. It involves indirect meetings between representatives of the Sudanese Army and the Rapid Support Forces, and its goal is to address the issue of the humanitarian crisis. I remain convinced that tackling the humanitarian issue is the correct approach to stopping the war in Sudan and is a top priority for addressing the worsening situation across the country. I would like to emphasise that this issue cannot be politicised, nor can it involve bargaining; humanitarian aid should not be held hostage by the warring parties or weaponised. Success in this file, in addition to reducing the severity of the crisis, could act as a practical entry point for the unity of the civil and political parties which oppose the war, and an appropriate entry point for launching the political process.

Given the failure to arrange for humanitarian assistance and protection of the needy in Sudan since the outbreak of war, I had suggested previously that international and regional actors should meet to reconsider the approaches in place so far and to agree on new methods, thinking outside the box, that are more effective for meeting the people’s needs. I also believe that we need to modernise and be innovative with new procedures including cross-border delivery, joint inspection of aid by parties to the conflict and international supporters, support for emergency room activities, the use of electronic cash transfers. It is also possible to benefit from the experiences of previous humanitarian assistance methodology such as Operation Lifeline, and the 2016-2017 proposals to help the Sudanese states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile.

In the same context, and as I have also suggested previously, senior and experienced leaders from the international and regional community should negotiate separately with influential senior officers in the Sudanese Army and the Rapid Support Forces, and agree bilaterally with each party regarding the creation of safe corridors and delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians. This is based on recognising the right of each party to control and approve of aid delivery corridors.

I hope that this is the essence of what is happening now in Geneva.

As for the third event, it is taking place in Addis Ababa under the auspices of the African Union, but I believe it is a repeat of mistakes that the AU has been committing since the Sudan war became part of its agenda. In July last year, the AU announced that, in order to involve Sudanese civilian groups in efforts to stop the war through the launch of a Sudanese designed and led political process, it would call for a meeting on 25 August last year in Addis Ababa, in which a large number of Sudanese would participate. As soon as the news spread at the time, questions arose: Is the meeting the brainchild of the African Union, or is it the product of consultation with a group of Sudanese people? If the latter, who are these Sudanese individuals and what and who do they represent?

Moreover, what were the criteria for selecting participants? Was it a meeting to discuss the contribution of civil forces to stopping the war, and thus the anti-war forces would participate and not those who fan its flames, or was it similar to earlier meetings which went nowhere? If there are answers to all these and other questions, why the lack of transparency?

Unfortunately, the AU followed the same approach regarding the current meeting in Addis Ababa, which will not achieve the launch of any political process, but will instead be doomed to failure, because it is limited to one bloc with homogeneous goals and visions, while major blocs and groups with different visions boycotted it. No political process can work unless opposing visions meet. This approach, which does not consider the thorny complexities surrounding the relationships within Sudanese civil society and is imposed without any prior consultation with the groups and blocs therein, and without taking their observations into account, is a harmful approach and will make the matter more complicated. The African Union should reconsider what it is doing.