Why is the Sudanese army under fire??
Osman Mirghani
In the past two days, Sudanese social media platforms have been abuzz with the incident of interrupting the speech of the farmers’ representative at the Civil Forces Coordination (Taqadum) conference as soon as he condemned the widespread violations committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Al-Jazira State. The interrupters demanded that the speaker also condemn the violations and bombings by the army, which he did to continue his speech.
The problem here is that within Taqadum, some believe that condemning the RSF must be accompanied by condemnation of the army. This stance has been more evident in many statements made by Taqadum representatives on various occasions and platforms, reinforcing the belief that Taqadum’s discourse has always been biased against the army for political reasons. The National Umma Party’s memorandum for reforming Taqadum, submitted last March, highlighted this issue, noting the “lack of neutrality” and “media bias towards one side of the war,” specifically indicating bias towards the RSF. In its first point, the party proposed reforming the path to “ensure Taqadum practices complete neutrality between the warring parties to function as a mediator to end the war and strive to correct any behaviour that contradicts this.”
After the RSF’s invasion of Al-Jazira State and the accompanying widespread violations, which were widely condemned by the Sudanese people, and following the Umma Party’s memorandum, there was some change in the discourse of Taqadum’s leaders. However, many of its supporters continued their attacks and attempts to discredit the army and demoralize its soldiers.
Even when Taqadum spokespersons partially adjusted their rhetoric, they condemned RSF violations only while also condemning army violations in the same breath, although there is a vast difference between them. There is no dispute that any violations are condemnable, but they cannot be equated in every case. Army violations are individual, while RSF violations are systematic and internationally witnessed. Therefore, when RSF forces enter a town or village, people flee, while the army’s arrival is met with celebration.
The focus on the army’s use of air power is not new and was initiated by the RSF, which has consistently conducted media campaigns to discredit air force operations that pose a significant threat to them. They hoped these campaigns would lead to international condemnation and a flight ban. Gradually, supporters of Taqadum and previously of the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) joined this campaign, making attacks on air operations a recurring theme in their statements. They speak of the army bombing certain sites with aircraft, sometimes resulting in civilian casualties, which is indeed regrettable. However, they overlook the RSF’s deliberate shelling of safe civilian neighbourhoods, which has claimed many lives.
Those attacking the army have gone so far as to accuse it of being a “jihadist army,” a disgraceful slander against the national military and a severe fall for those using such smears for political purposes. The army remains the nation’s military regardless of individual misconduct and regardless of any reservations. Reform is needed and is discussed even by military personnel, but it is reform, not destruction.
They talk about three crimes attributed to army personnel, which are indeed reprehensible and condemnable regardless of the perpetrator. The army itself condemned these actions and promised to investigate and hold the perpetrators accountable if found to be its members. It is in the army’s interest to announce the investigation results to affirm its credibility and reject such practices. Those attacking the army try to use these limited incidents to equate them with the widespread and systematic violations committed by the RSF.
Furthermore, when they attacked the mobilization and called for popular resistance, they accused the army of wanting to turn the war into a civil and tribal conflict. Meanwhile, they remained silent about the RSF’s tribal mobilization and recruitment of foreign mercenaries in ongoing, documented, and widely circulated video campaigns.
The war in Sudan will stop sooner or later. Still, the intense polarization and the way the political conflict is managed will cost the country dearly and increase its risks unless people learn to prioritize the nation’s higher interests over narrow political calculations and interests.
This article was originally published by the Asharq Al-Awsat Arabic version.