Dr Neamat Koko: ‘No political agreement has value unless it ends the war in Sudan’

Dr Neamat Koko, a member of the Central Committee of the Sudanese Communist Party and Director of the Gender Centre, has said there is no point in pursuing any political agreement that does not first bring an end to the war in Sudan. Speaking to Radio Dabanga, Dr Koko criticises a United Nations-backed call to support what has been described as a “Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue” through a consultative meeting proposed to take place in Cairo. In her assessment, the initiative does not represent a genuine opportunity for success and is more likely to fragment existing efforts.

She argues that a fundamental question remains unanswered: why did the previously planned meeting in Djibouti fail, and why did it not achieve its stated objectives?

According to Dr Koko, attempts at Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue have been repeated several times, some under the auspices of the African Union and others hosted in Cairo itself. She said these efforts have only resulted in deeper political fragmentation and entrenched positions, without producing meaningful solutions.

Dr Koko stresses that the role of the United Nations at this stage should not be to sponsor political dialogue, but rather to focus on ending the war, opening safe humanitarian corridors, and working to preserve Sudan as a unified state and people. She maintains that any genuine Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue should emerge from initiatives led by Sudanese civil and political forces themselves, not imposed by external actors. “The nature of the invitation, and those behind it, are decisive in determining whether such a process has any real value,” she said.

She also warns that the term “comprehensive Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue” is vague and open to manipulation, particularly when proposed in Cairo, which she describes as one of the countries supporting the war in Sudan. She questions which parties are intended to be included: Islamists, the so-called Democratic Bloc, or political groups based in Cairo, arguing that the lack of clarity only deepens confusion.

Dr Koko pointes to parallel talks reportedly taking place between the Sudanese government and the United Arab Emirates in the United States, saying this highlights the extent of regional and international polarisation surrounding the Sudanese crisis. She describes Sudan’s situation as having become a “rent-seeking file” for regional and international power blocs, as well as for some international organisations.

“The Sudan file keeps moving from one capital to another — from Addis Ababa to Nairobi, from Kampala to Switzerland, then to New York and Washington — without any tangible outcome,” she said.

She warns that if the war continues into early 2026, any talk of a Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue would be meaningless. “It would be a political dialogue while people are dying, starving, and enduring siege conditions, while refugees and internally displaced people face appalling humanitarian circumstances,” she said. Discussing power-sharing or control over resources under such conditions, she adds, represents a disregard for the priorities of the Sudanese people.

Dr Koko said her assessment of the proposed dialogue’s chances of success is no different from her evaluation of previous talks held in Cairo, Addis Ababa, Nairobi, Kampala, Juba, or Switzerland. She asks whether any of those meetings produced a genuine step forward.

She emphasises that prospects for a successful civilian transition in Sudan will remain non-existent unless the war ends first and displaced people and refugees are able to return home. Only then, she argues, can a Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue be held inside Sudan itself, focused on the country’s priorities and the concerns of its people, with the participation of citizens living inside the country.

Questioning the rationale for holding talks in Cairo, Dr Koko said those who attend such meetings are often individuals who move from one hotel to another and from one capital to the next, while Sudanese citizens inside the country — including those who took to the streets on 19 December — find no place for themselves in this political map. She concludes by warning that Sudan has become a target for exploitation and regional and international competition, calling on revolutionary, civil, political, and democratic national forces to remain alert to what she describes as conspiracies against Sudan and its people. She urges them to make ending the war and ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid the first and essential step, after which Sudanese people can decide their country’s future for themselves.