The agreement by Chairman of the Transitional Sovereignty Council and Commander of the Sudanese Army Abdel Fattah al-Burhan to launch intra-Sudanese dialogue has sparked debate among political forces in the war-torn country. The questions raised went beyond whether to take part or boycott, but to whether political dialogue held during war can stop the fighting and unify the country, or will it just be confined to regions held by the army. Burhan declared last week that he was agreeing to an initiative to form an independent national mechanism that would prepare “comprehensive dialogue”. He vowed to provide legal, security, political and logistic guarantees for the participants, saying no foreign powers would be involved. While agreeing to the dialogue, al-Burhan also rejected peace that would return the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and its supporters to power. Peace begins with the RSF laying down its weapons, otherwise the army will continue its operations against it, he warned. Prime Minister Kamil Idris said on Sunday that his government wants to restore peace and preserve Sudan’s unity. He also added that the RSF should be designated a terrorist organization, vowing that the army will not be lenient with its forces. Lawyer Nabil Adib, who was part of the committee that proposed the dialogue, told local media that his committee does not aim to end the war, but reaching political consensus. He hastily added, however, that that “ending the war may be one of the outcomes of the dialogue if the participants agree to it.” His statements reveal a dilemma: if the dialogue participants reach a consensus demanding an end to the war, implementing it would require the approval of both warring parties. Should the RSF remain outside the process, the dialogue may succeed in producing a political stance against the war, but it lacks a mechanism to enforce a ceasefire. Adib notably kept the door open to members of the RSF-aligned Sudan Founding Alliance (Tasis) to take part in the dialogue. The alliance includes political and armed factions that are opposed to the army. “Alliance parties that do not carry weapons can take part in the dialogue,” he confirmed. The pro-army Democratic Bloc welcomed the dialogue initiative, saying it was a step forward in “resolving the crisis through national political means”. On the other side of the divide, the Somoud civilian alliance, led by former PM Abdalla Hamdok, rejected any dialogue held while the war rages. In a statement, it said that any “political process - independent of the warring parties - must start with an end to the war and addressing the humanitarian catastrophe.” It warned against holding dialogue in areas held by the army, saying it would “consolidate the unofficial division” of Sudan. Sudan’s People's Liberation Movement-Revolutionary Democratic Current (SPLM-RDC), led by Yasir Arman, said the current crisis “goes beyond the war.” It is tied to building the state and the presence of several armies and militias in the country, it noted in a statement. It warned against dialogue that does not address the root causes of the crisis. The National Umma Party demanded dialogue that includes all segments of society, except for the National Congress Party. Umma Party leader Mubarak al-Fadil al-Mahdi called for an end to the fighting, as well as national reconciliation and negotiations over security arrangements that would lead to the unification of the army. He echoed warnings that holding the dialogue in army-held regions would consolidate divisions in the country and fuel the fighting. The army believes that excluding the RSF from power is a refusal to grant political legitimacy to a force that took up arms against it. However, the RSF’s continued control over parts of the country will undermine any constitutional or governmental arrangements produced by the dialogue in areas under its authority.
