Written August 2023 by a collection of members, represented by: Donald Booth, Former U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan
Hesham Youssef, Former Egyptian Diplomat
Moustapha Soumare, Former Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in South Sudan
Since fighting broke out on April 15 between the Sudanese Army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), editorial pages and think tank discussions have focused on apportioning blame and issuing calls for humanitarian access and accountability for atrocities. While such a focus is understandable, fixating on such issues will not restore peace in Sudan. Stopping the conflict requires looking forward not backward, it requires negotiation. As many had predicted, the fighting has metastasized. Darfur is again an arena of extreme violence and unspeakable horrors, and fighting between the army and armed opposition has re-ignited in South Kordofan.
Armed units of Juba Peace Agreement signatories have clashed with the RSF. More alarmingly, almost every neighbor of Sudan seems to be picking a side to support. The continuing refugee flow from Sudan threatens the stability of the region. Fortunately, all the neighbors are still talking about helping Sudan stop the fighting and start new talks about a political transition.
We write as diplomats who previously worked on Sudan and are now members of Diplomats Without Borders (DWB), an independent and impartial, non-profit organization of professional diplomats from around the globe with extensive experience in negotiation and peacebuilding. The authors of this article have consulted DWB colleagues with extensive conflict resolution expertise and would like to propose an interests-based approach to restoring peace and preserving the Sudanese state. For a negotiated peace to succeed, all parties who can overthrow an agreement need to be part of the agreement and the core interests of all such parties need to be considered and addressed. Peace is possible when the key actors in the current Sudanese tragedy recognize that their core interests can be achieved through negotiation rather than continued fighting.
General Burhan is a professional soldier who heads an army that has seen itself as the guardian of the Sudanese nation since independence. He and his fellow officers want to interact with other professional militaries, to retain their extensive economic interests and to have enough support of the Sudanese people to retain a significant say in the governance of Sudan. But can the army sustain popular legitimacy if it continues contributing to the death and destruction in Khartoum and failing to protect Sudanese in Darfur? While army leadership sees the RSF as a rebel group threatening the Sudanese state they know and hold dear, would it not make sense for the army to stop aerial bombardment and to try negotiating a ceasefire in Khartoum and a separation of forces that would make at least some urban areas safe zones for residents and humanitarian assistance? Might the army show it is indeed a protector of all Sudanese by protecting civilians in Darfur? Might such efforts gain the army popular support as it engages in negotiations that will be needed so Sudan can be governed peacefully and prosper?
General Hemedti and his paramilitary troops envision a Sudan where people like them from Darfur and other long-neglected areas are treated as equal citizens and can be leaders of and prosper within Sudan. Prior to April 15, General Hemedti demonstrated a pragmatic approach to acquiring power. He was instrumental in securing the Juba Peace Agreement, admitted the October 2021 coup was a mistake, and made common cause with the civilian political Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) in pursuing a civilian transitional government. However, the conduct of urban warfare in greater Khartoum has undone the benefits of past pragmatism. The extreme violence General Hemedti’s paramilitary forces are engaging in now in Darfur has refreshed memories of past ethnic atrocities and led to renewed calls for accountability. If ruling Sudan requires the destruction of much of the country, there will be little worth ruling. Might negotiating a separation of forces that would make some urban areas of greater Khartoum military-free zones, protecting rather than attacking civilians in Darfur and then negotiating with fellow countrymen/ women on how Sudan can be governed inclusively and peacefully be a more promising path to equal citizenship and political power than further fighting?
Sudan’s civilian political leaders have long expressed differing views on the nature of Sudan (Islamist or secular, capitalist or communist, Nile valley or periphery-led) and how it should be governed. Unfortunately, those differences undermined the first transitional government and convinced many inside and outside of Sudan that civilian politicians could not deliver the stability needed to attract investment, create jobs and provide social services. Civilian political leaders gave the generals little serious competition for power. In the process, they lost support of those who created the opening for civilian government by rising up first against the Bashir regime and then against military rule. Might this current national crisis be the time to try to reconnect to the Sudanese people, to build real grassroots political support and stand united to achieve peace and a civilian-led Sudan? Achieving a modicum of power by backing one armed group or another may seem attractive, but without popular support can civilian politicians have any real authority?
The actions of Resistance Committees and Civil Society in opposing the Bashir regime, in opposing military rule and now in helping Sudanese reach shelter and access assistance have earned the respect and support of fellow countrymen and women. The grassroots civilian organizations have provided cohesive resistance to those who seek to rule Sudan by the gun. But they cannot wish away the power of those with guns. Might this not be the time to unite in protecting civilians by focusing on urging a separation of forces to create military-free urban areas where real grassroots governance can emerge? Might this open a path for a truly national dialogue in which the voices of all, in which Sudan’s women and youth in particular, will have a prominent seat at the table and be heard by the generals and outside powers whose influence and resources will weigh on Sudan’s future? Is this not the time to demonstrate again, as you did in 2019, that grassroots support is necessary to achieve peace and stability in Sudan?
Sudan’s international and regional partners have put much thinking into how to convince Sudan’s armed parties to agree on a permanent ceasefire and to enter into negotiations for the restoration of peaceful and accountable governance in Sudan. Many Sudan experts have questioned the utility of pursuing a new deal between the army and the paramilitary RSF as both have failed to respect negotiated ceasefires. However, peace can come only via negotiation, and, as stated already, those with the capacity to overthrow a solution must be persuaded or pressured to be part of the solution. The governability of Sudan also requires the support of those who represent real constituencies whether they be secular, Islamist, tribal or other. They need an equitable seat at the table. Don’t almost all neighboring countries, regional powers and international partners share the common goal of a stable and effectively governed Sudan? If so, those supporting one armed group or another need to signal it is time for them to end all forms of fighting, separate forces and negotiate with each other as well as with their fellow countrymen/women. Isn’t it also time to unite efforts to facilitate negotiations before Sudan collapses completely? While complete unity of effort is unrealistic, sufficient unity of effort – by those with the most influence on Sudanese actors – should be achievable with focused diplomatic effort and pragmatism.
Members of Diplomats Without Borders stand ready to assist any and all parties to end the current conflict via negotiation and to support the peacebuilding efforts that must follow.
Comments