Two Sudanese political scientists interviewed by ‘Sky News Arabia’ disagree on whether the conflict between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces will lead to a political or military solution, and in whose favour. Dialogue remains a necessity.
startling statement
Despite clashes between the army and the Rapid Support Force in Khartoum and the Darfur region on Friday, after the two sides agreed to extend the fifth truce for 72 hours, the UN envoy returned on Saturday to tell Reuters that both parties had nominated their representatives for incidents he proposed to occur in Saudi Arabia or South Sudan.
He added that while each side was convinced they were the winner, they were now talking about negotiations.
And on Friday, army commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan said he would never sit with Rapid Support Forces commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, “Hamditi”, and described him as “the chief of the rebellion,” while Hamditi said he would not hold talks until the army stopped fighting.
Who violated the armistice?
According to the director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis in Khartoum, Al-Rashid Ibrahim, the fifth armistice will not be “different” from the previous ones, but rather it is “the least applied”.
The Sudanese army accuses the Rapid Support Forces of having violated the armistice and of attacking areas belonging to the Air Defense Force in Jabal Awliya, and of attacking a Turkish evacuation plane, while the support forces accused the army of “spreading lies”.
Ibrahim says the Rapid Support Command “cannot respect the armistice” after losing control of the forces, and its fighters are currently working with “special estimates on the ground”.
On the other hand, the Sudanese political analyst, Muhammad Abdullah Wad Abuk, sees the advantages of the truce, if it really does not mean “the end of the war”, but it has come “to stop the clashes for a specific time and for humanitarian purposes,” pointing out that he has already circulated transport and markets in some areas. However, it faces “many challenges that are rapidly collapsing”.
The armistice is rapidly collapsing due to the lack of clear oversight mechanisms, which also makes it difficult to determine who is responsible for violating it, according to Wad Abuk.
Military or political solution?
If the internal wars end either with a military resolution or with a political agreement, then Al-Rashid Ibrahim will probably be the “master of the situation” in his country.
He explains: “The army has always prevailed throughout history in Sudan, which has happened in several similar historical events”, and it is “more appropriate” to break the thorn of the rebellion, which paves the way for the political option later.
The director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis in Khartoum expects the army’s “military victory” to produce the following results:
Exclude the Rapid Support Forces from the security system and the political process. Shaping a new security and political reality in Sudan.
A loser’s choice for everyone
However, Wad Abuk considers that “war is a losing option for all parties and for the country”, and that “no party can say that I will continue indefinitely and guarantee the consequences of the continuation of a long war in the light of political and social divisions”, and internal and external disparities.”
He says, “We must agree to a long and lasting truce and engage in serious dialogue to end the war.”
Hundreds of people have been killed and tens of thousands have fled after fighting erupted between the army and the Rapid Support Force since April 15, disrupting public facilities and services and halting preparations for elections that would put end to the existing transitional government.
Read the Latest World News Today on The Eastern Herald.
