Amstertdam — By Amin Ramadan for Radio Dabanga
Young Sudanese have expressed their views on the proposed Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue initiative aimed at ending the war in Sudan. Some see dialogue as a necessary entry point to a political process, while others warn that the initiative could become another political settlement that ignores the roots of the crisis and reproduces earlier experiences that failed to deliver peace and stability.
Speakers in interviews with Radio Dabanga's Youth Issues programme said any future political process should take into account the scale of violations witnessed across the country and the deteriorating humanitarian situation, as well as the historical, political, and social causes that led to the outbreak of war on 15 April 2023.
Transitional justice first
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The young feminist activist and human rights defender Ibtihal Abdelrahman told Radio Dabanga that genuine peace in Sudan could not be achieved through the sharing of power and wealth or superficial political settlements. Instead, it required addressing questions of justice and injustice that had accumulated over decades.
Abdelrahman expressed reservations about the proposed Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue, asking which parties would participate and whether it would include all Sudanese political forces and social components, or be restricted to particular parties.
She warned against repeating previous experiences that focused on quotas and the division of power and wealth without addressing the roots of the crises, arguing that this had led to the reproduction of conflicts rather than their resolution.
She stressed that transitional justice must come before the political process and should include holding those responsible for crimes and violations to account from 1989 to the present, as well as reparations, compensation for those affected, official apologies and efforts to address the social and psychological consequences of the war.
She said social peace should follow the resolution of the justice issue, with civil society empowered to work on reconciliation and peaceful coexistence, bridge divisions between communities and confront hate speech before moving towards new political arrangements.
Warning against repeating past settlements
The youth activist Albaraa Bashir, meanwhile, said the launch of the Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue initiative represented, in his view, a continuation of what he described as the two sides' "political evasiveness", rather than an attempt to confront the consequences of the war and address the deepening humanitarian crisis.
He told Radio Dabanga that the war had left large numbers of internally displaced people and refugees, while pushing millions towards the risk of hunger and famine. The initiative, in its current form, appeared vague and lacked genuine political will, he said.
Mortada warned that a successful dialogue without addressing fundamental issues could produce a fragile government and superficial political arrangements that failed to tackle the causes of the conflict or prevent a renewed outbreak of war.
He said any political process must be linked to an end to the war and to addressing its humanitarian and social consequences, rather than simply redistributing positions of power among political and military forces.
Ending the war must come first
Youth activist Mortada Ahmed, meanwhile, argued that Sudan's current crisis was fundamentally military in nature and that proposing political dialogue while fighting continued represented, in his view, an attempt to move away from the central problem.
He called for the solution to begin with direct negotiations between the warring military parties and their allies, with the aim of securing a ceasefire, stopping the bloodshed, and restoring security and stability.
He told Radio Dabanga that political issues and civilian arrangements should come after the war had ended, saying it was difficult to reach a sustainable political settlement while violence and violations continued.
He also criticised what he regarded as an attempt to confer political legitimacy on the existing situation through dialogue, saying that determining the country's future should be the responsibility of Sudanese people, particularly civilian forces, once a safe and stable environment had been established.
He called for any future settlement to include arrangements for rebuilding the military establishment, including the integration and demobilisation of armed groups and militias into a single professional national army, followed by the formation of a civilian political authority reflecting the aspirations of the Sudanese people.
Dialogue to address the roots of the crisis
By contrast, youth activist, and rights campaigner Sawsan Juma Mousa said dialogue remained a fundamental entry point for any political process aimed at ending conflicts and wars in Sudan. But she stressed that its success would depend on how inclusive it was and its ability to address the roots of the crisis.
She told Radio Dabanga that the dialogue required should not be merely a series of political meetings or arrangements between elites. Instead, it should examine the fundamental causes that led to the conflict and allow broad participation by Sudan's various political forces and social components.
She pointed to Sudan's previous experiences, including the dialogues that preceded the secession of South Sudan and the agreements relating to Darfur and Juba, saying they had not been sufficiently inclusive and had failed to address the deeper causes of conflict. This, she said, had contributed to the continuation of crises and the outbreak of new wars.
She added that the war that began on 15 April had started between two military parties but quickly expanded to encompass multiple alliances, each with its own interests and agendas, making the conflict more complex.
Sawsan warned that ignoring the roots of the crisis could allow the war to continue for many years, citing the wars in South Sudan, Darfur, and the Nuba Mountains, which lasted for decades.
Civilian state and permanent constitution
Despite differences over the order in which priorities should be addressed, the various positions share a belief that any future political process must lead to a fundamental change in the way the Sudanese state is governed.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Ibtihal Abdelrahman called for an end to power-sharing quotas, appeasement, and narrow interests, and urged the establishment of Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue based on the concepts of citizenship and Sudanese national identity, free from external dictates.
She also called for a civilian state founded on independent, impartial, and transparent judicial institutions, and for a permanent constitution reflecting the aspirations of Sudanese people and guaranteeing representation for the country's various components.
Disagreement over the order of priorities
The activists' positions reveal a clear disagreement over the sequence of steps needed to end the war. While Ibtihal Abdelrahman believes transitional justice should precede the political process, Fatima considers a ceasefire and an end to the fighting the first step, while Sawsan Juma Mousa sees inclusive dialogue addressing the roots of the crisis as the essential starting point for a solution.
Mortada, meanwhile, warns that the initiative could become a superficial settlement focused no further than power-sharing and failing to respond to the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe caused by the war.
Between these differing visions, there is broad agreement that no Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue will be capable of delivering lasting peace unless it addresses the roots of the conflict, ends violations, deals with the consequences of the war, and guarantees broad participation by civilian and community forces. Such an approach, they argue, would pave the way for the construction of a civilian state and national institutions capable of preventing Sudan from falling back into cycles of war and conflict.
