teleSur
The Jeddah platform for negotiation between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) is still the only hope for ending the nightmare of the April 15 war. The problem is that the political equations and calculations in the field cast a shadow over the progress of the talks.
Related:
With the collapse of each round of the Jeddah Forum talks for negotiation between the military alliances in Sudan (the army and the RSF), the two sides exchange accusations, with each party not adhering to what was agreed upon.
The Jeddah negotiations started the sixth of last May, brokered by the United States of America and Saudi Arabia. Both countries tried to reach a real truce that stopped the shooting for a long time, and despite the truces signed between the two parties to the conflict in earlier times, mutual breaches occurred from both of them.
The mutual suspicion between RSF and the army is one of the reasons of this failure. In mid-July, representatives of the two sides engaged in indirect talks after suspending negotiations for a month and a half. The delegation of the Armed Forces returned to Sudan, while the delegation of RSF remained in Jeddah.
In a statement dated July 27, the army said that the two delegations discussed a draft cessation of hostilities, in which they agreed on many points. However, the disagreement over some essential points, including the rebels’ evacuation of citizens’ homes in all areas of the capital and the service facilities, hospitals and roads, led to a lack of agreement. As a result, the army representatives returned to Sudan for consultations, with readiness to continue the talks whenever they were resumed after overcoming the obstacles.
Extensive war crimes are being committed in Sudan as the conflict between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) ravages the country, Amnesty International said in a new report.
https://t.co/nEfGyB6YZb— Warren Risk, Crisis, Intelligence Consulting (@WarrenRisks)
August 4, 2023
On the other hand, the RSF, accused the armed forces in a statement of not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire that was signed and failing to achieve the desired goals “because of the multiplicity of decision-making centers within the “putschists.” RSF stated that the delegation of the “putschists” is controlled by the leaders of the National Congress (the Omar al-Bashir´s political party) who manage the negotiations from behind.
The statement described – what the army mentioned the presence of the support forces in hospitals – as “false allegations” and considered it an attempt to “lift the siege on the military headquarters that are located in populated areas, especially the General Command, and bring food supplies, fuel and medicine to them.”
According to observers, such statements may represent a negotiating method, but they also illustrate the large gap between the two parties, which raises some questions about the reason for the prevarication, and what are the most important obstacles facing the Saudi/American platform? Is there really a multiplicity of decision-making centers within the army, or obstruction from the remnants of the former regime, or a desire by the armed forces to tip the scales of fighting, to negotiate from a center of power?
It is obvious is that the Jeddah platform, since its inception, did not address the roots of the problem from the political point of view and focused on the humanitarian aspect only. That is why all the 12 truces that were announced so far were not adhered to, especially by the RSF.
The government withdrew its delegation twice, and a decision was issued to suspend negotiations for a third time.
According to military expert, Amin Magzoub, in his declaration to Aljazeera “It seems that Washington has a new plan to deal with the Sudanese crisis, away from the platform of Jeddah, and it may have been presented to both sides and consultations are taking place about it,”. Magzoub is referring to the statement of the US Secretary of State’s advisor for the Horn of Africa, in which she indicated that “the Jeddah negotiations are not compatible with the American plan.”
Magzoub stated that the most important obstacles now are how to get the RSF out of citizens’ homes, hospitals and service areas, so that their presence does not become a fait accompli. This is in addition to opening the paths and roads in which the pillars of the RSF forces are located, because they impede the flow of humanitarian and medical aid and prevent relief and medical teams from reaching the affected people. Not to mention the terrific acts of women and girls´ raping, and the looting of the homes and property of citizens.
For his part, security expert Omar Arbab believes that the army is trying to improve its negotiating position by decisiveness in the field. He believes the army is doing so “to increase the scope of its control in the capital, strategic areas, and other fighting areas.”
Arbab said that the army try to find answers to questions such as is negotiation better or improving the army’s position, and what if the field situation worsens and the militia begins to control new positions. He is wondering “trying to improve the situation of the army worth all these losses and sacrifices?”
According to analysts, the two parties are exhausted by the war, and it is not in their interest to continue further. Therefore, their presence at the negotiating table is important to achieve peace.
The question is that the matter is related to other external implications such as the regional sphere and its effects. So, restoring stability in the country that used to be the largest one in Africa till South Sudan split in 2011 cannot be achieved unless Internal terms correspond to external links.
The political analyst Rashid Al-Sheikh pointed out that the RSF is in need of international umbrella to ensure a safe exit, and this will mean a shrinking of the areas controlled by it, and an increase in the army’s deployment.
In general, it seems difficult to separate what is happening in the field from the political proposals and arrangements that are being prepared in the negotiating rooms. Especially if we consider the endeavor of each party to improve its negotiating position through field control. It seems that the two conflicting parties do not care about other factors, like the pressures of allies and friends at home and abroad and the citizens’ desire to turn the page on the war and return to the path of the civil state.
United Nations officials and international analysts say the talks in Jeddah will hopefully lead to positive results. Regardless of the output of these conversations, holding these talks indicates that Saudi Arabia is trying to demonstrate its ability to play a leading diplomatic role in the Arab world after years of a sullied global image caused by the war in Yemen.
