Introduction:
As the war in Sudan approaches its three-month mark, there are no signs of progress in ending the conflict between Sudan’s army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The international community must abandon outdated strategies and embrace new, innovative approaches to prevent Sudan’s collapse, as warned by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Recent attempts at brokering a cease-fire through regional talks have failed to include the voices of Sudan’s civilians, reflecting a recurring pattern throughout Sudan’s democratic transition. This article, on behalf of the Washington Center for Human Rights, delves into the need for inclusive negotiations, the limitations of previous initiatives, and the urgent necessity for a comprehensive approach to ending Sudan’s war.
Exclusion of Sudan’s Civilian Voices:
One glaring issue in recent attempts at peace talks is the exclusion of Sudan’s civilian voices. Throughout Sudan’s democratic transition, grassroots movements, civil society organizations, trade unions, and political parties have been sidelined, preventing their valuable input from being considered. This exclusion has been observed consistently, from the aftermath of the October 2021 coup to the current conflict. International engagement with Sudan has inadvertently legitimized warring parties while marginalizing those advocating for a peaceful and inclusive resolution. Such disregard for civilian perspectives undermines the chances of sustainable peace and stability.
Limitations of Previous Initiatives:
Previous initiatives, including the US and Saudi Arabia-sponsored Jeddah platform, have failed to deliver lasting peace due to critical shortcomings. The Jeddah platform neglected to include other regional and international actors, such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, who are influential backers of the Sudanese army and the RSF. Furthermore, the absence of Sudanese civilian representatives in these talks hindered their effectiveness. The lack of transparency in the negotiations further eroded confidence in the process. It is crucial to recognize that these flawed initiatives have not yielded the desired outcomes, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation of strategies and a shift towards more inclusive approaches.
Importance of Inclusive Negotiations:
To address Sudan’s complex conflict, inclusive negotiations that incorporate the perspectives of grassroots movements, civil society organizations, and political parties are essential. Sudan’s diverse actors must be given the opportunity to articulate their visions for the future of the country. While divergent opinions may exist, accommodating these voices is crucial to building a sustainable and inclusive peace. The international community must align its actions with the genuine aspirations of the Sudanese people, rather than catering to the interests of rival generals and warlords.
Learning from Successful Local Initiatives:
Local initiatives within Sudan have demonstrated success in bringing peace to specific communities. These initiatives, brokered by local groups and civil administrations, have achieved cessation of hostilities in various parts of Sudan. International diplomacy should draw lessons from these localized peace efforts and incorporate them into future talks with the warring parties. Meaningful inclusion of grassroots actors, who have a deep understanding of the local dynamics, can enhance the prospects of reaching a comprehensive and lasting resolution.
Reevaluating Current Strategies:
The severity and complexity of Sudan’s conflict demand a reevaluation of current strategies. Superficial solutions and rushed talks between elites will not suffice. The international community must address the root causes of the conflict and prioritize the genuine demands for democracy and peace raised by Sudanese civilians. Ad-hoc approaches that appease warring parties while disregarding civilian voices have proven ineffective. It is crucial to embrace innovative approaches that prioritize inclusivity, transparency, and long-term stability.
Conclusion:
The Washington Center for Human Rights emphasizes the urgent need for innovative approaches to prevent Sudan’s collapse and restore peace. The exclusion of Sudan’s civilian voices in previous initiatives has been a major hindrance to progress. The international community, including the United Nations, must prioritize inclusive negotiations that genuinely reflect the aspirations of the Sudanese people. Local initiatives that have successfully achieved peace in specific areas should serve as models for future talks.
Addressing Sudan’s conflict requires a departure from superficial solutions and a commitment to addressing the root causes of the conflict. This entails meaningful engagement with grassroots movements, civil society organizations, and political parties. The Washington Center for Human Rights calls on the international community to reevaluate current strategies, abandon ad-hoc approaches, and support comprehensive initiatives that prioritize peace, democracy, and human rights in Sudan. By doing so, we can contribute to a sustainable and inclusive peace that safeguards the well-being and aspirations of the Sudanese people.