AU’s Sudan process raises more questions than answers

For whom does the African Union toll its bells in October?

Who designed the political process, and can it succeed without addressing the humanitarian catastrophe or protecting civilians?

By Yasir Arman

The African Union and IGAD are vital organizations for Sudan, and the AU’s firm, maintained stance against the illegitimacy of the October 2021 coup is to be appreciated. Despite rare positive moments, historically, nothing has harmed Sudan’s foreign policy more than its withdrawal from its African role and its failure to recognize its African dimension—a dimension complementary to others but mostly ignored. Meanwhile, Sudan’s civic and popular forces have always supported African liberation movements and never abandoned that role.

Currently, there is talk of the African Union extending an invitation to civic forces to begin a political process this October. However, this invitation raises more questions than it answers.

Among the questions are:

• Who designed this process?
• Who determined which parties were invited?
• Were the forces of the revolution, change, and the anti-war movement genuinely consulted and included in its design?
• Will we be served a meal at the African Union’s table without knowing its source or the cooks who prepared it?
• Are mere sideline meetings sufficient to design a political process on the scale of Sudan’s war?
• Can a political dialogue begin by lumping warring parties and anti-war groups together under the single label of “civic forces”?
• What role is the African Union playing in addressing the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe, unfolding right here on the African continent in Sudan?
• Can a political process begin without addressing the humanitarian catastrophe as its starting point and without establishing mechanisms to protect civilians?
• Can a political process begin while the war is ongoing and without a humanitarian ceasefire?
• What is the connection between the AU’s current efforts and those of the Quartet, the Jeddah platform, the neighbouring states’ initiative, and others?
• To what extent are the warring parties truly committed to this October invitation?
• Has the African Union presented a clear, coherent, and transparent vision to the Sudanese people and to those concerned with a just peace in Sudan? What is that vision?
• Who decided the list of participants for October? And how will this planned dialogue be managed?
• What is the ultimate goal of this process? And how does it relate to ending the war?

We must collectively answer these questions in a serious and respectful dialogue with the African Union before committing to any political process.

The political process must be a comprehensive package that prioritizes the humanitarian catastrophe and civilian protection. It must be designed with genuine inclusion of anti-war forces and clear, transparent participation from Sudanese stakeholders. Sustainable peace cannot be achieved without meeting the demands for a democratic civilian transition, ensuring accountability for war crimes, and addressing the root causes of the conflict. Any attempt to exclude revolutionary and pro-democracy forces—or to use them as mere tokens—will not bring lasting peace.

We must end this war. We need the African Union’s involvement, but this cannot be a hasty process simply to secure the AU a seat at the table. A process designed without the active involvement of the Sudanese people—particularly the anti-war forces—is destined to fail.