Peace in Sudan: Paths and challenges
Bloody battles continue between the Sudanese army and the
Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which separated from its commander, in different
areas of Khartoum and the city of Omdurman, at a time when the United Nations
warns of the conflict turning into a humanitarian catastrophe.
Eyewitnesses
Eyewitnesses reported hearing explosions and gunfire in the
streets and seeing warplanes targeting some locations of the RSF, which is
headed by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo “Hemedti”.
Human rights organizations stated that the clashes, which
erupted on April 15, left at least 676 people dead and 5,500 others injured, in
addition to more than 700,000 people forced to flee inside Sudan and more than
200,000 to neighboring countries.
Arab and international mediation
The United States and Saudi Arabia are mediating between the
army and the RSF in an attempt to stop the
fighting, as the US State Department said it is supervising negotiations in
Jeddah aimed at reaching a short-term ceasefire to deliver humanitarian aid to
the affected people.
Representatives of the army and the RSF had signed the
Jeddah Declaration, which aimed to crystallize a ceasefire that would allow the
removal of civilians from the combat zones and allow the delivery of
humanitarian aid to them, but the ceasefire was violated, amid mutual
accusations between the two parties to the conflict of being responsible.
Solutions to the crisis
In an attempt to find a solution
to the crisis, the past few days witnessed several international and local
initiatives to bring the conflicting parties in Sudan closer together.
Among these initiatives is the call of the United Nations,
through the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS), for
political consultations between the Sudanese, as well as the offer of the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to mediate negotiations
between the actors in the country, in addition to an initiative from South
Sudan to continue the mediation role between the army and the RSF.
Eritrea also put forward an initiative to bridge the views
of the political parties in Sudan, while the Arab League received an initiative
from high-ranking Sudanese civil figures under the title “The National
Initiative to Resolve the Sudanese Crisis”.
National initiative
At home, Sudanese university administrators put forward an
initiative for national reconciliation, while elements of the National Umma
Party and a number of political figures are leading
similar movements to end the crisis.
However, despite the many initiatives, their success depends
on the willingness and agreement of the parties involved in the conflict on a
peaceful and democratic solution.
Possible paths to peace
Regarding paths to achieving peace in the country, Sudanese
political analyst Abdel Aal El-Sheikh said, “There are some possible paths to
achieving peace in Sudan, but they face great challenges and difficulties,”
including the following:
- The peace agreement that the Sudanese government signed
with several rebel groups in October 2020 with the aim of ending years of armed
conflicts in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile. The agreement includes
protocols on power and wealth sharing, security arrangements, and autonomy for
some regions. However, this agreement did not include some important factions,
such as the Abdelaziz al-Hilu wing of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement,
and it faces challenges in its implementation and financing.
- The National Dialogue that the transitional government in
Sudan called for since protests intensified in 2019, which aims to involve all
parties in formulating a common vision for democracy, development and justice,
but this path is being rejected by some opposition forces such as the Sudanese
Professionals Association and the Forces of Freedom and Change, who are calling
for the complete overthrow of the regime.
- International mediations offered by some countries and
organizations to bring the conflicting parties in Sudan closer together, such
as the role of South Sudan in sponsoring the Juba peace negotiations, the role
of the Public International Law & Policy Group in holding meetings in Paris
with Sudanese leaders, or the role of Eritrea in putting forward an initiative
for dialogue.
El-Sheikh pointed out that these paths need a strong
influence on the parties to the crisis to persuade them to abandon their
hardline positions, as well as to coordinate with local initiatives put forward
by high-ranking Sudanese personalities, university directors, or the National
Umma Party.
