Sudan’s leaders must choose negotiation over endless war
Can President Gerald Ford walk and talk at the same time? And can the Army fight and negotiate at the same time?
Mayo and the rule of law!
Yasir Arman
A distressing video has surfaced on social media, reportedly from the Mayo residential area in Khartoum, showing dozens of young men from the neighborhood who appear to come from specific geographic regions of Sudan. They were detained and shackled, with claims that they belonged to an enemy group.
The Mayo residential area, Al Hizam, southern Khartoum, and other parts of the capital require a high level of sensitivity from the armed forces, along with adherence to local and international humanitarian laws and the laws of war. We condemn and stand against any targeting based on ethnicity, geography, or region.
The armed forces must restrain militias and affiliated resistance groups, particularly the bloodthirsty and terror-driven Islamist extremists. Attacks based on regional, ethnic, or geographical lines turn every achievement into a defeat, erode public and national support, and lead to national, regional, and international accountability. The leadership of the armed forces needs a national discourse that rises above pettiness and calls for social unity and a just peace.
Furthermore, upholding the rule of law and redeploying the police in villages, neighborhoods, and cities is the need of the hour. There must be no discrimination among citizens, and treatment should not be based on tribal or geographic affiliation. Such videos displaying discriminatory treatment of Sudanese harm Sudan’s future and unity.
Finally, there is a crucial and strategic issue: the just peace that our people need as much as water and air. Sudan has inherited a rich experience from its tragic wars, proving that negotiations and the pursuit of peace can take place even during conflict. This has happened repeatedly between different governments in Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).
A popular saying in the United States, used by critics of former U.S. President Gerald Ford, to mock him, stated: “He can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.” Or, “He can’t walk and talk at the same time.”
This was baseless ridicule, and similarly, many Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) leaders have negotiated during wars without letting the fighting prevent them from seeking peace. The ability to fight and negotiate has two advantages:
- It eases internal, regional, and international pressure on the warring party.
- It may achieve declared objectives through negotiations rather than through the heavy cost of war.
The question remains: why does the SAF refuse to negotiate with clear demands? Does rejecting negotiations weaken or strengthen its political standing domestically and internationally? If the army’s argument is that it will negotiate only after improving its position on the ground, then after gaining control over Sennar, Al-Jazira, and Khartoum, isn’t now the right time?
As our people say, “greed ruins what has been gathered.” Those who fight while making peace their strategic priority are the true winners. The army leadership must advocate for peace as a strategic approach.
Regrettably, both warring parties confirmed – on the morning of Eid, in unmistakable terms – that they are heading toward more war, not peace. What kind of Eid gift is this for the people? One of them even stated, “The war is just beginning”, after two years filled with casualties, losses, suffering, and war crimes.