The Geneva meeting is important for millions of Sudanese who are victims of wars
Yasir Arman
The current meeting in Geneva, which was organized by the United Nations without clear coordination with the region and other forums, is of great importance and has not received enough attention. The meeting comes at a time when the war in Sudan is being discussed in many different platforms without effective coordination! Despite the importance of all these platforms, lack of coordination reduces their importance and results.
The humanitarian catastrophe that Sudan is witnessing today is the worst and largest in the world as it has destroyed the lives of more than 25 million Sudanese citizens, who have been killed, wounded, internally displaced, forced to flee across the border or have been the victims of war crimes committed all over the country. The war has also destroyed civilian infrastructure, polarised society and caused the collapse of the state and its institutions, especially the military sector. It has also destroyed the nation’s capital city, Khartoum, which is no longer functioning as a capital, something that, in other civil wars, didn’t happen to capitals like Baghdad, Sana’a, Aden and Damascus, which survived in some way.
The importance of the Geneva meeting lies in the fact that it is based on two resolutions by the United Nations Security Council, which are rare and very important decisions given the current division in the Council, and that the United States is taking part, perhaps for the last time before the start of its complex elections.
The meeting is also important because it starts correctly with the main slogan of the democratic civilian forces, which is to stop the war, address the humanitarian catastrophe and protect civilians. The causes of a patient’s disease cannot be treated before stopping the bleeding of the patient, as this takes priority. Although the Geneva Track is a military track that has not been linked to the civilian track, the issue of the relationship between the civilian political process and the military process to stop the war and build a new dispensation is a real issue. The objective should not be to produce another miserable civilian-military partnership as in the past at the expense of achieving a sustainable solution and the goals of the December Revolution. The Geneva meeting is taking place amid important regional initiatives towards Sudan, and it addresses issues that affect millions of Sudanese citizens rather than the issues of the elite. Its main goal is to stop the war instead of sharing power or fulfilling the dreams of the “bananas” (the so-called Democratic Bloc), who think they have the right to share weapons and power!
Oh Army, Peace be upon You, do not take the Islamists’ war on your shoulders
On social media, some ridicule the position of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), which refuses to take part in joint talks with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and its choice to negotiate indirectly through UN facilitators. But sarcasm will not stop the war. The mere fact that the two warring parties have both sent delegations to Geneva for the meeting is an achievement for the United Nations, the Security Council resolution and the parties. There is no reason to make fun of the positions of the army. The story of this war is painful, complex and tragic. It has destroyed the people and the country. It is the duty of the army and its leaders to think strategically without anger or taking on the agenda of the remnants of the former regime. The people and the army have had a bitter experience with the Islamic Movement and the National Congress Party politicising institutions, and no institution has suffered as much as the army. However, the Islamic Movement has not been able to completely tame the army, which is why it pays pro-Islamist journalists, some of whom appear on television in Port Sudan calling for the replacement of the SAF commander-in-chief and even daring to suggest who should come after him in blatant interference in the affairs of the army.
It is in the interest of our country that the army does not collapse. Yet, at the same time, the army must get out of politics and distance itself from the agenda of all political parties. The army leadership can build its position on a clear agenda addressing the Sudanese people and the RSF, based on stopping the war, protecting civilians, building a professional national army, restoring civilian rule and creating sustainable peace. The SAF benefits from the fact that many civilians are being displaced to areas under its control and this strengthens its case for accepting the agenda to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Geneva. The destruction that the war has caused to both the SAF and the RSF is a waste of human resources given the challenges and dangers facing the country. SAF leaders must rise above negative feelings and the desire for political power and prioritise the need to preserve and rebuild the military institution, establish the state and reconcile with the forces of the December Revolution as the way to end the war and rebuild the military sector. If the RSF completely defeated the army and took the war to all parts of Sudan, governing Sudan and building a military sector in an environment of sustainable peace would be difficult to achieve because the war would continue and spread and would produce more warlords and ethnic conflicts in different parts of the country. The way to end the war is for neither of the warring parties to try to humiliate the other party or to create deeper bitterness. If either party were to win this war, it would have immense difficulty in achieving stability. Most importantly, the people would not keep quiet. There would inevitably be a huge battle with the forces of the December Revolution. This war will not go unnoticed. The Revolution has not been erased by the war. Once the people in the towns and villages return home and resume their lives, they will raise the banners of the Revolution again.
In conclusion, the Geneva meeting is important and those who organize it should not be satisfied with one round because of the negative impact of bullets and the sound of guns on the ground. They should hold a series of rounds with the support of the Security Council and regional and international organizations and mobilize the energies of all other platforms to push the parties to take part in a series of meetings close to each other in time so as not to lose momentum. If the current round fails, God forbid, the mediator should determine the earliest time for the second round with the support of the UN Security Council, the African Union and the League of Arab States. Any ceasefire needs to be long-term and enforced by having a regional monitoring mechanism on the ground. The warring parties need this cessation of hostilities for tactical and strategic reasons, especially to reorganize and control their forces, and most importantly, to address the humanitarian catastrophe and protect civilians.
We, in the civil and democratic forces, must pay attention to what is happening in Geneva and mobilize our energies internally and externally to support it and criticise its shortcomings. Stopping the war would open the way for a real political process. Otherwise, it would turn into a mere formality, infiltrated by elements of the former regime, and an occasion to take souvenir photographs. Such a process would be at the expense of the victims, the December Revolution, the ordering of real priorities and sustainable peace.