El Burhan’s dialogue plan faces tough questions from Sudan’s women leaders

Sudanese women’s leaders and activists are questioning whether army chief and Sovereignty Council chair Gen Abdelfattah El Burhan’s proposed dialogue can deliver a meaningful political breakthrough without a ceasefire, independent guarantees, and genuine participation by women. The 19-member Sudan Dialogue Preparation Committee says it is launching a national, independent effort to create the conditions for talks between political, civil, and community forces. It says its role is limited to facilitating initial consultations on the conditions, methodology, participation and representation criteria, guarantees, and agenda, without imposing a predetermined path.

At a press conference in Khartoum on Sunday, the committee called for written, verifiable guarantees for participants, an end to cases linked to political views against those travelling from abroad to join the dialogue, temporary procedural immunity, and an environment that allows public freedoms. It says the state’s role should be limited to providing guarantees, facilities, and protection, without interfering in the selection of participants, the agenda, or the outcomes.

But women’s activist Rabha Ismail tells Radio Dabanga that while ending Sudan’s war will ultimately require dialogue, its success depends on the warring parties agreeing to its terms and mechanisms. She questions who will select the dialogue committee, and how its independence can be guaranteed when the Port Sudan government itself is a party to the conflict.

The process also needs mediation and a political environment created through a truce and ceasefire as signs of good faith, she says. With the war continuing and spreading, any dialogue held amid fighting risks becoming, in her words, “a one-sided dialogue”.

Ismail says the political process must address the roots and causes of the war rather than settle for a temporary deal. Ignoring the structure of the state and sources of violence, she warns, could produce a fragile peace that plunges the country back into war or coups. She also fears that the continued influence of Islamists within the Port Sudan authorities could give them renewed legitimacy through the dialogue.

Women need “peace from a feminist perspective”, she says, with meaningful participation that delivers justice, dignity, and equality, dismantles structures of violence, reforms and reorganises military institutions, tackles hate speech, and rebuilds trust between communities.

On amnesties and immunities, Ismail distinguishes between protection from prosecution over political positions and exemption from accountability for abuses. People who have committed crimes and violations, she says, should not benefit from political arrangements that shield them from accountability.

Who guarantees the guarantees?

Dar Alsalam Abdullah Wada’a, head of the Sudan Civil Movement and an advocate for the political and social participation of rural women, tells Radio Dabanga that dialogue is, in principle, necessary. But the central questions are who is calling for it, and who determines its participants, conditions, and guarantees.

Burhan, as commander of the army and a principal party to the war, cannot be treated as a neutral actor or as the sole representative of the state in the political process, she says.

Wada’a’s questions how armed movements and groups fighting alongside the army will participate, and whether they will enter the dialogue as independent parties or as forces aligned with the army. The status of every participant must be clear from the outset.

She calls for clear participation criteria covering armed groups and Islamist organisations that have taken part in the fighting. Taking up arms and participating in the war, she says, should not automatically become a route to political legitimacy.

Anyone proven to have been involved in crimes or abuses against civilians must be held accountable, she says.

On the guarantees promised by El Burhan, Wada’a asks: “Who guarantees these guarantees?” No party to the war should have sole authority to determine participants or guarantees, she argues. An independent and trusted body is needed, along with binding guarantees protecting freedom of movement and expression, and preventing arrest or prosecution over political positions.

Political amnesty should not become a route to impunity, she says. Wada’a also calls for existing regional and international initiatives on Sudan, including the efforts of the Quad and the Quintet, to be taken into account rather than treating the domestic dialogue in isolation.

Fears of entrenching division

Stana Mahmoud, deputy head of the Beja Congress, tells Radio Dabanga that El Burhan’s call for dialogue uses amnesty and immunity in a political context that could, in her view, entrench military rule and give the current authorities political legitimacy they lack.

She warns against granting amnesty for serious international crimes. Any immunity provided for political participation should be temporary and limited, and should not cover crimes or abuses, she says.

The dialogue in its current form could also deepen Sudan’s divisions, Mahmoud says. Any genuine political process to end the war must include the parties to the conflict and political forces, and must not be led by a military party.

El Burhan should focus on his military duties rather than lead a political dialogue, she says. His presentation of himself as a representative of the state, rather than as the leader of one side in the war, raises questions about the nature and neutrality of the initiative.

Mahmoud calls for the political process to be linked to efforts to end the war through de-escalation, the opening of humanitarian corridors, and a ceasefire, alongside talks involving civil and political forces.

Sudan’s previous political experiences with El Burhan, from the dispersal of the sit-in outside army headquarters to the 25 October 2021 coup and its aftermath, mean political forces must approach any new call for dialogue with caution, she says. Efforts to end the war should be based on the Quad’s process and the measures it sets out, she adds.

“A real opportunity — with conditions”

Taking a less pessimistic view, journalist and political activist Sara Daifallah tells Radio Dabanga that Sudan has had enough of speeches and unproductive dialogues. What it needs instead, she says, is serious dialogue that leads to an end to the war.

A Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue could be a genuine opportunity if approached seriously and opened to all national forces without exclusion or settling scores. Anyone with a political position has the right to participate unless they have been involved in killing Sudanese people or violating civilians’ rights, she says.

Protecting participants is essential so that no one fears arrest or targeting because of their political position. But immunity “should not be a cover for crimes or a gateway to impunity”.

Daifallah says it is necessary to distinguish between cases that may be used for political score-settling or prosecution over opinions, and victims’ rights and cases involving abuses. El Burhan’s comments on the issue need greater clarity to ensure that applying the guarantees does not wrong victims.

Sudanese people exhausted by war, displacement, destruction, hunger, and disease want peace, security, and dignity, she says. The dialogue should therefore focus on addressing their suffering, rather than dividing up power and government posts.

“We want justice without revenge, dialogue without exclusion, and guarantees that protect political participants who have not committed crimes, while at the same time preventing fabricated charges and personal vendettas,” she says.

Daifallah criticises competition for government positions amid the humanitarian crisis. The priority, she says, should be ending the war and addressing hunger, disease, the disruption of education, and the social fragmentation caused by the conflict, rather than seeking government positions.

The committee’s call for an inclusive Sudanese dialogue now faces a fundamental test: whether it can move from declarations of intent to practical conditions for talks, including an end to the war, an independent facilitation mechanism, clear participation criteria, and guarantees that do not undermine justice.

Meaningful participation by women and civil forces, and addressing the roots of the conflict and structures of violence, will be crucial to producing lasting peace rather than a temporary settlement that reproduces the crisis in a new form.

---

Note: This article has been translated from Arabic with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools, and subsequently reviewed and adapted by a human editor before publication.