Sudan: Dialogue Now or Disaster To Come
An-Nahar, Lebanon, May 4
Only a dramatic change in the balance of power can convince the warring parties in Sudan—Lt. General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Lt. General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti)—to return to the negotiating table and reach a settlement that will bring an end to the conflict. The seven-day truce, which came after three weeks of fighting, is a hopeful sign of diplomatic progress. Neither side has a clear advantage, and both must realize that a long war of attrition could have unpredictable consequences. Is this enough to convince the two men that dialogue is the better option? If al-Burhan and Hemedti sit down at the dialogue table, it could signal the start of a much-needed power-sharing agreement. It has become increasingly clear that neither of them can win the battle swiftly enough to crown themselves the next leader of Sudan. Continuing the war poses a great risk to both sides and could bring about regional and external interventions, thus altering the political and military landscape of the entire country. Such a situation could even lead to another secession, more than a decade after the split of South Sudan. No one can dispute the strategic significance of Sudan in the Horn of Africa, East Africa, and the continent overall. However, a prolonged war could render Sudan a forgotten country, unable to cope with its troubles in the light of the countless other conflicts and crises around the world, such as the Russian-Ukrainian war, which appears on the brink of a new escalation that could lead to a direct confrontation between Moscow and NATO. Tensions are also escalating in Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the Korean Peninsula; developments that could bring the Pacific and Indian oceans to the brink of a Chinese-American military confrontation. The war in Sudan has the potential to expand beyond the Sahel countries, deepening the crisis and threatening to spread among warlords. If prolonged, it will fail to produce a victor, and both al-Burhan and Hemedti will suffer from diminishing strength. New rebellions, fueled by the ambitions of tribal leaders, could arise from the chaos and fighting and will find support both internally and externally. The international community remains committed to ending the war in Sudan and finding a viable solution for both sides. However, it is likely that regional and global initiatives will eventually decline, leaving Sudan to its own devices. This could result in a similar situation to that of Libya, where twelve years of chaos have resisted all international attempts to restore order. Sudan could also succumb to the same fate as Somalia, which has been divided between a legitimate government (with limited control beyond Mogadishu), jihadists, and pirates for over 30 years. It is not too late to prevent the fighting from escalating into a catastrophic war that would result in more deaths, injuries, and displacement of millions of Sudanese. These people are already suffering from the deepening economic crises caused by the numerous authoritarian regimes that have ruled the country. Most of these regimes were headed by generals who clung to power at the expense of the people. The exception to this is Field Marshal Abdel Rahman Swar al-Dahab, who faithfully handed over power to civilians in 1985 after overthrowing the Nimeiri regime. The world is now watching to see who will take control of the power. The West has tolerated the two generals for various reasons, and they have monopolized the power they are now fighting over. Perhaps experiences will convince al-Burhan and Hemedti to show mercy to Sudan and its people and to engage in dialogue to share power: a right that belongs to the people, not to them. —Samih Saab (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
