Two days after the Security Council voted on a draft resolution calling for a truce in Sudan, the steps and efforts aimed at a ceasefire between the army and the Rapid Support Forces do not seem hopeful, according to observers, while accusations have mounted between the two parties about the extent of seriousness in adhering to the truce.
On Friday, the United Nations Security Council called for a ceasefire in Sudan during the month of Ramadan, as the situation in the country deteriorated.
Fourteen countries supported a text proposed by Britain, on which Russia abstained, calling on “all parties to the conflict to seek a sustainable solution to the conflict through dialogue.”
The Security Council session was held one day after calls made by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, on Thursday, for both parties to the conflict in Sudan to “ceasefire during the month of Ramadan,” while the humanitarian crisis is taking on “massive proportions.”
Terms and demands
The Security Council’s call to both sides of the fighting in Sudan is not the first, as the United Nations previously called for a ceasefire, without the call receiving a firm commitment from the army or the Rapid Support Forces, which would establish an end to the fighting that broke out in April 2023, according to specialists.
The strategic expert, Al-Zaki Abdel Moneim, blamed the Rapid Support Forces, accusing them of “not adhering to and adhering to the truces that the two parties reached on previous occasions.”
Abdel Moneim, a former army officer, told media, “The Rapid Support militia, instead of adhering to the announced truces, is exploiting them to redeploy and position themselves in new areas, and to transfer and bring in new fighters, which has led to the exacerbation of the conflict.”
He pointed out that “the army demands that the Rapid Support Militia be obligated to implement the Jeddah Agreement regarding its exit from citizens’ homes and civilian objects.”
On May 11, the army and the Rapid Support Forces signed an agreement in the city of Jeddah, sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the United States, which stipulates “protecting civilians, protecting all private and public facilities, and refraining from using them for military purposes.”
The strategic expert pointed out, “The army also adheres to the withdrawal of the Rapid Support militia from the states of Al-Jazira and Sinnar, and from all the sites it seized following the Jeddah Agreement, such as Nyala, Al-Jeneina, Zalingei, and Al-Daein.”
In the latest official comment, Assistant Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Lieutenant General Yasser Al-Atta, said in a statement on Sunday that “there will be no truce in Sudan during the month of Ramadan unless the Rapid Support Forces leave homes and civilian sites,” according to Reuters.
On the other hand, Ammar Siddiq, a member of the Advisory Office of the Commander of the Rapid Support Forces, confirmed that “the Rapid Support agreed to the truce called for by the Security Council,” and pointed out that “the army does not want to stop the fire, and calls for the continuation of the confrontations without the slightest regard for the suffering of the Sudanese.”
A friend told media, “The Rapid Support Forces are keen to stop the fire, in a way that contributes to the protection and safety of civilians, and ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches them, especially during Ramadan.”
The member of the advisory office noted that “the Rapid Support Forces hope that the truce will establish the start of serious consultations for a political process that will lead to ending the war, achieving security and stability, and reaching a comprehensive solution to the Sudanese crisis.”
In turn, Ibrahim Al-Mubarak, professor of political science at Sudanese universities, pointed out that “the truce collapsed before it began, because there is a complete lack of trust between the two sides of the fighting in Sudan.”
Al-Mubarak told media, “The international community is still dealing with the Sudanese crisis in a way that appears romantic and ineffective, and is content with issuing calls and demands for the two parties to stop fighting, without using effective mechanisms to force them to end the conflict.”
He added, “It is not reasonable for the Security Council to vote on a ceasefire resolution without establishing effective mechanisms, or setting strict penalties for those who obstruct efforts to end the conflict. This is a useless method, and does not take into account the suffering of civilians in Sudan.”
On Thursday, the World Food Program warned that the war that has been going on in Sudan for nearly 11 months “may create the largest hunger crisis in the world” in a country that is already witnessing the largest displacement crisis at the international level.
The Director of the World Food Program, Cindy McCain, said that the battles, which left thousands dead and displaced 8 million people, “threaten the lives of millions, and threaten peace and stability in the entire region.”
Mutual accusations
The UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Sudan during the month of Ramadan coincided with movements led by the UN Secretary-General’s envoy to Sudan, Ramtane Lamamra, which observers considered “an appropriate opportunity to settle the conflict, if the will of the two warring parties is present.”
A member of the Advisory Office of the Commander of the Rapid Support Forces says, “The multiplicity of positions and decisions within the army is the main obstacle to all movements seeking to end the war.”
He considered that “there is no unified position for the army commanders, because the decision is not in their hands, but rather in the hands of the leaders of the regime of former President Omar al-Bashir, who control the joints of the military establishment in Sudan.”
He pointed out that “Army leaders make pledges during negotiations, but they quickly disavow them, under pressure from the leaders of the Bashir regime, which is what happened with the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Shams al-Din Kabbashi, who led secret negotiations with the Rapid Support, and then came and disavowed those negotiations.”
The Forces of Freedom and Change announced in a statement, “Kabashi met twice last January, in the Bahraini capital, Manama, with the Deputy Commander of the Rapid Support Forces to discuss ways to end the war, but he boycotted a third session, dedicated to completing the negotiations, without giving reasons.”
The statement explained, “After the unannounced negotiations were exposed, Kabbashi was subjected to a systematic and widespread campaign of betrayal by elements of the Bashir regime, who refuse to stop the war and are working to continue it.”
But Al-Zaki Abdel Moneim believes that “the army leaders have a unified opinion, calling for the withdrawal of the Rapid Support Forces from civilian objects and citizens’ homes.”
The strategic expert downplayed the importance of the conversations that indicate “the leaders of the Bashir regime control the decision-making joints within the army.”
He pointed out that “the leaders of the Bashir regime were unable to control the army’s decision when they were rulers of Sudan. It is known that the army sided with the demonstrators and overthrew Al-Bashir, and this is a fact that discredits any accusation that speaks of the Bashir regime’s current control over the army.”
He added, “There are no differences or division in the positions of the army commanders, and everyone is adhering to the implementation of the Jeddah Agreement, as a condition for the success of the truce.”
In April 2019, the Sudanese Minister of Defense at the time, Awad Ibn Auf, announced that the army sided with the demands of the demonstrators who carried out a sit-in in front of his general command, and read a statement that ousted Al-Bashir.
For his part, Ibrahim Al-Mubarak pointed out that “the position of the army commanders seems unified when they talk about battles and the option of a military solution, but their positions differ somewhat when talking about negotiation or the political process.”
He added, “For the first time since the outbreak of war, a separate statement was issued by the Assistant Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Yasser Al-Atta, although statements are always issued by the Army Spokesman, or by the Information Office of the Sovereignty Council.”
He pointed out that “Al-Burhan gave initial, conditional approval for the truce called for by the Security Council, according to what was confirmed by the Sudanese representative to the United Nations, while Al-Atta showed a completely rejecting position, which means that there is a difference in the positions of the two men.”
Sudan’s representative to the United Nations, Al-Harith Idris, said that “Army Commander Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan confirmed, through an official letter, his approval of a call made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, to stop the fighting during the month of Ramadan.”
Idris said, during a session of the UN Security Council, on Thursday, that “Al-Burhan insisted on obligating the Rapid Support Forces to implement the Jeddah Agreement, regarding the withdrawal of Rapid Support from citizens’ homes and civilian objects.”
In the latest American move regarding the Sudanese issue, the US envoy to Sudan, Tom Perriello, officially began his duties, and said that he “will meet with the emergency response committees and the youth and women’s committees in Sudan as part of efforts to bring peace to the country.”
In an interview with media, the American envoy explained that “all Sudanese parties must commit to the peace talks, indicating the aspiration for the parties to the conflict to return to the Jeddah Platform initiative.”
According to United Nations figures, the conflict between the army and the Rapid Support led to the deaths of more than 12,000 people, and forced more than 7 million to flee their homes, including 1.5 million who took refuge in Chad, Egypt, Central Africa, South Sudan, and Ethiopia.
