jasdooit

We appreciate the mediators’ attempts to bring about a ceasefire. However, the issue persists: how they are utilizing their influence over the conflicting parties to establish a humanitarian ceasefire, and whether the conflict in Sudan is a top concern for the global community.

There is no evidence supporting claims of a pre-existing, finalized agreement. It is possible to refer to certain understandings, but it is evident that the road toward a ceasefire is fraught with challenges that require careful handling, while taking into account the voices of the Sudanese people—the primary stakeholders and future custodians. The responsibility for discovering solutions, creating internal pressure mechanisms, and engaging constructively with external actors and mediators lies with Sudanese men and women. The most significant tool at our disposal is the unity of the anti-war coalition. We can organize into a powerful anti-war front whose message resonates, uniting the majority of our population. The December Revolution previously brought them together, and the desire to end the war is now attracting forces beyond the December Revolution group. This is essential to ensure that the Sudanese people are considered and not overlooked in the shaping, ownership, and involvement in the peace process as a central party, and that peace does not turn into an agreement made behind closed doors without public participation.

Before quickly and without proper consideration accepting remarks made occasionally in regional and global meetings, and to ensure that we – as Sudanese – are not just a mirror reflecting what others do without our participation, we must examine the challenges and ways to tackle them. In this article, I will discuss four issues among many. In a follow-up article, I will look into possible remedies. All of this demands teamwork, shared knowledge, and public backing.

1. The Role of the Army and Its Partners:

The military command aims to position the Rapid Support Forces as a subordinate ally, satisfied with whatever portion of power and resources the army and its allies grant them, within a framework that denies accountability and offers immunity as part of the agreement, while excluding authentic civilian entities. The military is concerned that a ceasefire could enable the Rapid Support Forces and their allies to regroup and rearm, potentially attempting once more to take over military positions, particularly if the ceasefire reinforces the Libyan model and validates the RSF’s foreign alliances. The military has an interest in prolonging the conflict. Although there is a temporary alliance between the military and the Islamists, the latter remain cautious about the current military leadership and oppose the notion of the military engaging in both combat and negotiations, as occurred during al-Bashir’s time. They worry about the international connection that might bring the military into the international community and close the door on the Islamists.

We need to analyze the army’s stance without taking its side. The anti-war groups should offer a different perspective that thoroughly reviews the army’s position and skillfully evaluates the temporary alliance between it and the Islamists. We should operate from within, following the declared mediation policy that excludes the Islamists, and steer clear of an oversimplified mix-up between the army and the Islamists. We are the ones with a stake in this, while civilians are bearing the consequences. The Islamist agenda needs to be limited. The army must understand that asking for the Rapid Support Forces’ surrender is essentially a demand for the war to continue and weakens any intention for peace within the RSF.

2. The Fast Response Forces and Their Allies:

They declare a ceasefire and say they want it, but simultaneously they strike military positions and surround cities. In this scenario, they are on the offensive, not the defensive, which raises questions about their genuine commitment to the ceasefire and suggests that it might be part of a public relations strategy aimed at enhancing their image. Moreover, their declaration of establishing a government and creating a state is a tactical step that makes achieving a quick ceasefire and political resolution more difficult, and extends the ceasefire without leading to a definitive agreement.

3. The Absence of Unity in the Mediation:

The mediation has become divided, with the exception of the United States, which seems removed from the conflicts faced by other mediating nations. The absence of unity within the mediation process and the requests from certain parties involved in the war to exclude others are negative signs that reduce the mediation’s influence and lead to an extended conflict. Additionally, there is another group led by the African Union, and there is no clear cooperation between the two groups.

4. The Conflict in Sudan and the Regional Power Struggles:

Modern conflicts have deep ties to global politics across different regional zones around the world. The conflict in Sudan has become entangled in regional disputes with international implications. Sudan occupies a special location along the Red Sea region, the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, and the Middle East, and is connected to battles over the exploitation of resources, including water. In recent times, the fighting within Sudan has spread to nearby nations. The longer it takes to find a resolution, the more regional complexities rise, and regional alliances associated with the conflict, along with their global extensions, expand.

These four elements, alongside other issues, such as internal conflicts, make it challenging to establish a humanitarian ceasefire. Nevertheless, the global community, especially Sudan, has encountered situations related to war and peace that can be utilized effectively.

Do We Draft the Prescription, or Will Someone Else Do It for Us?

From Dr. John Garang de Mabior, during the years of conflict and through our engagement with what occurs within our nation and its regional and global connections, we have learned to expedite the development of a treatment plan that fits our country’s circumstances, rather than leaving it to others, while keeping positive relations with them. At some point, a ceasefire is certain to arrive. It is a crucial condition that paves the way for the right to life and the protection of civilians, free from hunger and fear, and to stop the humanitarian crisis and violations. However, a humanitarian ceasefire will be inadequate if the anti-war groups do not form a strong front, agree on a vision that tackles the essential issue of the role and involvement of civilians in the humanitarian ceasefire, and do not let it be solely managed by the two military sides involved in the conflict. This is because the main goal of a ceasefire is to safeguard civilians from the fighting parties, and it acts as a starting point to increase the space available for civilians. This cannot be achieved without the active participation of civilians themselves.

The ceasefire establishes the foundation for a political process as a unified, cohesive package. This involves creating a wide coalition for peace, democracy, and civic participation, so that we identify ourselves through our positive goals rather than simply by what we oppose as an opposing and anti-war group.

We need to draft the prescription that our people have fought for, and avoid creating an opportunity for a deal labeled as peace that repeats our past problems and leads us into another conflict, instead of achieving lasting peace, equal citizenship, and a strong democracy.

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.Syndigate.info).