Peace in Sudan: Paths and challenges

Aya Ezz

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.