The recent call initiated by the head of the coup council, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, for a comprehensive political dialogue within Sudan, which, according to his remarks, excludes only those whose hands are stained with the blood of the Sudanese people, is an initiative that serves to highlight the general’s desperate attempt to recalibrate the existing narrative by shifting the point of debate from responsibility for igniting the war to a discussion about who has the right to participate in the dialogue. The aforementioned is a tactic commonly employed by military regimes that attempt to monopolize the definition of legitimacy.<\/p>\n
If the criterion for eligibility in terms of dialogue is that “one’s hands hadn’t been stained with blood,” then objectively, Al-Burhan cannot be exempt from this condition, as the general has yet to wash his hands of said stain! Hence, the aforementioned criterion promptly excludes him from securing a seat at the table.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, upon listening to the tone of the speech, one will note that it fails to correspond to the Sudanese consciousness, as if it were crafted by an external political mind that doesn’t grasp the sensitivity of the Sudanese memory to bloodshed, nor does it understand that the Sudanese people don’t easily accept a discourse of “moral innocence” from a party implicated in the ongoing war and facing international accusations.<\/p>\n
The Sudanese people possess a profound level of awareness when it comes to the history of bloodshed and coups. Therefore, when Al-Burhan speaks of “excluding those whose hands are stained with blood,” any Sudanese national listening will pose the same question: Isn’t he the first to be included in this description?!<\/p>\n
Moreover, an experienced Sudanese political mind will not produce this type of error in terms of speech, for it understands the public. Hence, when the language of the speech is influenced by an external frame of mind, the Sudanese public consciousness is effectively ignored, and the remarks are then directed more at regional and international actors than at the Sudanese people themselves, which, in a way, explains its contradictory nature.<\/p>\n
It seems that the countries that were betting on a “decisive victory” have reached the conclusion that Al-Burhan has failed in achieving the military solution, and are now pushing him towards a political settlement tailored to their interests.<\/p>\n
For the general, who has failed to achieve victory and quell the rebellion for over three years, now realizes that steering clear of this process means isolation and exclusion from any future arrangements, and he may soon find himself facing justice.<\/p>\n
Therefore, he may have deliberately engineered a “political image” to appease the international community and re-present himself as a leader who sponsors “dialogue,” despite his responsibility for the war and the imposed sanctions against him as a leader “proven to have committed violations.”<\/p>\n
In addition, the call for dialogue addresses the crux of the political and moral dilemma Al-Burhan faces today, as he was loud and proud in his rejection of dialogue from the outset of the war, and that sentiment dates further back to him rejecting the Framework Agreement, only to later declare, “Glory be to the rifle,” then announce his intention to forge a path of “decisive victory,” and dismiss politics as a luxury.<\/p>\n
Which begs the question; How can he present himself -now- as a sponsor of dialogue whilst the war continues to rage, given the crimes he committed beforehand..!?<\/p>\n
For the crime of dispersing the sit-in in front of the Military’s General Command Headquarters -alone- is enough to disqualify him from any “peaceful” negotiations, for participants whose hands aren’t stained with blood.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, this call, in particular, constitutes an admission of his inability to impose his project by force and cements the reality that he is facing a dead end that has forced him to reconsider the very option of dialogue he once ridiculed!<\/p>\n
And within the context of the aforementioned, the following question arises: Can dialogue begin from a point that proceeds the war..!?<\/p>\n
As the hands of the clock do not crawl backward.<\/p>\n
And Al-Burhan is effectively using a selective moral standard that condemns his opponent and exonerates himself, whilst reality dictates that he is responsible for the bloodshed. Therefore, his exclusion of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) fails to stand on a coherent moral foundation, rather, it renders the most recent development to no more than a desperate political attempt to eliminate his opponent and monopolize legitimacy.<\/p>\n
Dialogue without accountability is merely an incomplete political settlement, because the general is trying -rather diligently- to ignore the root causes of the crisis: “The bloodshed, the violations, and crimes committed against the people.”<\/p>\n
It is well known that dialogue without accountability may temporarily halt the fighting, but it does not create lasting peace. Instead, it leaves wounds open and reproduces the crisis in the future.<\/p>\n
The Commander of the Rapid Support Forces has clearly stated his readiness to hand over the perpetrators, meaning he acknowledges the existence of crimes within his forces. However, with this call, and with any other, al-Burhan fails to acknowledge the crimes at all. He presents the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) as a “clean institution,” despite all the international reports that have proven its violations, meaning that he is effectively attempting to continue to occupy this middle ground, the safe haven afforded by the continuation of the war.<\/p>\n
Even those who defected from the Rapid Support Forces found that seeking refuge with the Sudanese Army was preferable to facing accountability, as long as Hemedti would hand them over without hesitation. As the Sudanese Army doesn’t open files on crimes, nor does it acknowledge the presence of criminals within its ranks. Therefore, it has become a safe haven for major war criminals and perpetrators!<\/p>\n
Dialogue cannot take place under the shadow of drone strikes. It requires, first and foremost, a ceasefire; second, recognition of the principle of accountability; and third, political will.<\/p>\n
Anything else will fall short of amounting to the level of dialogue, rather, it would merely be an attempt at political maneuvering. A settlement cannot be built whilst blood is being shed, and trust cannot be established amidst the intransigently targeted aircraft bombing.<\/p>\n
Dialogue requires the prerequisite of a land that enjoys peace, not skies of war.<\/p>\n
There will be no successful dialogue except between the warring parties; anything less is merely failed political maneuvering.<\/p>\n
Final thoughts:<\/strong><\/p>\n #NoToWar<\/strong><\/p>\n Upcoming:<\/strong> An analysis of the visit of Lt. Gen. Ahmed Ibrahim Mufaddal, the Director General of the General Intelligence Service, to Russia, and its connection to his first visit to America!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The recent call initiated by the head of the coup council, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, for a comprehensive political dialogue within Sudan, which, according to his remarks, excludes only those whose hands are stained with the blood of the Sudanese people, is an initiative that serves to highlight the general’s desperate attempt to recalibrate the existing …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":163042,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8263],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles"],"yoast_head":"\n