"It's all about power, not democracy"

Qantara: Let’s begin with the most recent negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland, last month. How do you assess the outcome? 

Osman Mirghani: This round of negotiations was supposed to be the beginning of the end of this dark chapter of the war. Three points were on the agenda: the opening of safe corridors for transporting aid, an agreement on a ceasefire as a precursor to peace talks, and the initiation of a political process for the transfer of power back to a civilian government. 

But evidently, things have turned out quite differently. The Sudanese Armed Forces delegation did not even travel to Geneva, which meant that a ceasefire agreement did not materialise. Although negotiations took place remotely over 10 days, the warring parties only reached an agreement on the first point: the establishment of two humanitarian corridors, one via the Adre border crossing enabling access to regions in the province of Darfur, and a second from Port Sudan to the city of Al-Dabbah to allow access to the north of the country. There was no decision made on the other items on the agenda. 

According to UN representatives, Sudan faces the world’s biggest crisis after more than 500 days of war. There are signs of famine in Darfur. Has the humanitarian situation eased since the Geneva negotiations? 

There has been a noticeable easing of the situation. Hundreds of food deliveries have been brought into the country via Adre and Port Sudan. More than 3000 tons of aid supplies have reached almost 300,000 Sudanese citizens. Nevertheless, 25 million people are still at risk of severe hunger and famine, particularly in Al-Fashir in Darfur and Sennar state in the southeast. The need for humanitarian aid remains very high, but it’s an encouraging start. 

In May 2023, the USA and Saudi Arabia tried to resolve the conflict through negotiations in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Why were they unsuccessful? 

Despite all efforts, the will for peace among the Sudanese parties to the conflict was not sufficient to take advantage of the international momentum and work out a solution. The talks only led to isolated humanitarian pauses in the fighting lasting a few days, which had no discernible impact on the situation on the ground or the humanitarian conditions. 

During the Geneva talks, the USA also pressed for an end to the war. What is Washington’s objective? 

Due to the ongoing war and the worsening humanitarian situation, there is a risk that Sudan will descend into complete chaos. This is one of the world’s most vulnerable regions. Sudan is located on the Red Sea, an important transit route for world trade. The USA wants to avoid a situation like the one in Yemen, which would put international shipping at risk. 

For this reason, a new mediation process has been in place since the beginning of the year as a continuation of the Jeddah talks. The starting point is a roadmap on three levels: humanitarian, military and political. The first two levels have been negotiated in Geneva. The third, the political process, was entrusted to several states from the region. Initial talks were held at a conference in Cairo at the beginning of July, at which the political factions came together and tried to agree on a political process that would facilitate a return to civilian rule. This was followed by a second and third conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The process is ongoing, and attempts are still being made to find a political solution for the future of Sudan after the war. 

What is the next step in the negotiations, and what is going on in the background? 

The focus currently appears to be on humanitarian aid, as we wait to see whether the positions of the negotiating parties change. Meanwhile, mediation efforts are being led by the US with the participation of hosts Saudi Arabia and Switzerland, and observers Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the African Union and the UN. These efforts have created a framework that functions independently of time and location. As there is no fixed end to this process, the Sudanese factions can return to the negotiating table at any time to negotiate the outstanding points. 

The war broke out a year and a half ago. Did you expect it to last this long? 

No, I did not. The Sudanese people are not convinced by the causes of the war and its continuation. The initial outbreak of hostilities has never been justified. The war began in April 2023 as a result of conflict between political actors in Sudan, revolving around US-sponsored attempts to finalise a framework for the transfer of power to a civilian government. These conflicts could have been contained without affecting peace and security in the country. Unfortunately, the political actors resorted to military force and took up arms. Each side tried to push through its political agenda. The escalation between commander-in-chief of the Sudanese armed forces Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his deputy Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), came to a head and war broke out on 15 April. 

The fighting intensified, deepening the rifts and drawing in regional and international powers. Initially, for about three months, the war was confined to an area of 20 km² within the capital Khartoum. Later, some political forces lent further legitimacy to the war, such as when the Sudanese Coordination of Civil Democratic Forces, also known as Taqaddum, reached an agreement with the RSF in January. 

But don’t civilian political movements like Taqaddum claim to be working towards an end to the war? 

All political actors are keen to take advantage of the situation to promote their post-war agenda. This is one of the reasons why the war has lasted so long, and it greatly weakens the role of political forces working towards an end to the war. Taqaddum is one of these actors, it's a movement that lacks experience and has major weaknesses in its approach. It has made serious mistakes, for example, signing the Addis Ababa agreement with the RSF commander Dagalo. This move branded the movement as partisan in the eyes of the Sudanese. 

Political actors are drowning in conflict and losing sight of national interests. If they recognised the influence that they could have in ending this war and shaping the future of Sudan, they could play an important role. 

Both sides claim that they are fighting the war for the Sudanese people in defence of democracy. Is that really what the fight between Dagalo and al-Burhan is about? 

In my opinion, it's all about power. It has nothing to do with the interests of the Sudanese people. The RSF talk about democracy and ending marginalisation in some regions of Sudan. In practice, however, in the last one and a half years of war what the RSF have really inflicted is bloodshed, destruction of infrastructure and attacks against the Sudanese people. This is a far cry from the calls for democracy, good governance and things like that. 

Foreign countries have supplied weapons during this conflict. For example drones have been sent to the Sudanese armed forces by Iran, and more recently, aeroplanes by Russia. On the other side, it has been reported that the RSF have received weapons from the United Arab Emirates. Is there a proxy war taking place in Sudan? 

Of course, international and regional actors were drawn into the conflict when both sides were looking for support. But these contacts and links are limited. They do not currently pose a threat to Sudan's unity and cohesion. We are far from the Syrian scenario, where the whole country ended up becoming a battlefield for third parties. 

But if things continue as they are, many other actors will take advantage of the chaotic conditions and use the vast territory of Sudan, the eight neighbouring states, and the 800 km of Red Sea coastline to create chaos in the region. In particular, terrorist organisations active in African states to the east and west of Sudan could find a safe haven within Sudan's extensive geography. 

How could the war end? 

It is currently inconceivable that one side will win and the other will be completely defeated. In the end, the Sudanese armed forces will win, but at a high price. This could lead to the division and fragmentation of Sudan. If the war continues as before, the situation will get out of control, so a negotiated settlement is the best solution. 

© Qantara.de 2024