Sudan’s civil society groups reject El Burhan’s mooted dialogue as ‘political cover’

Sudanese civil society coalitions and actors, the Darfur Women Platform, Sudan Civic Convergence Tracks, Sudan Peace Call, Tadamon, and Union’s Front, have issued a categorical rejection of a proposed Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue sponsored by Gel Abdelfattah El Burhan and the country’s military leadership, warning that a political process organised under the authority of one of the parties to the war cannot deliver either peace or legitimacy.

In a joint statement issued today* (to read the complete statement, scroll down to base of post), the five Sudanese civil society coalitions and actors say the proposed “Preparatory Committee for the Sudanese-Sudanese Dialogue”, announced in Khartoum at the invitation of the Sudanese Armed Forces leadership, lacks the neutrality, credibility, and inclusivity required for a genuine national process. Instead, they warn, the initiative risks becoming political cover for the consolidation of a de facto authority while the war continues and civilians pay the price.

More than three years after the conflict began, killing tens of thousands, displacing millions, and devastating much of the country, the signatories argue that Sudan’s crisis cannot be resolved through what they describe as a nominal dialogue conducted under military sponsorship. The coalition says any political process must reflect the aspirations of Sudanese people and support a lasting civilian democratic transition.

The statement focuses particular criticism on the proposed preparatory committee, arguing that a dialogue organised in territory controlled by one military party, and held under its sponsorship, cannot claim neutrality or credibility. Instead, it says, such a process risks providing political cover for the consolidation of a de facto authority while deepening Sudan’s already severe political divisions.

‘We believe that any regional or international effort should support a nationally owned peace process, rather than entrenching the agenda of a de facto authority at the expense of the aspirations of the Sudanese people…’

The coalition also argues that the proposed process lacks the basic conditions required for genuine participation. It says there is no sufficiently safe environment, nor adequate guarantees of freedom of expression and organisation. As a result, it warns that large sections of Sudanese society, particularly those most affected by the war, risk exclusion.

Internally displaced people, refugees, women, young people, and grassroots organisations must be meaningfully involved in any process intended to determine Sudan’s political future, the coalition says. A dialogue that excludes them cannot credibly claim to speak for the country.

The statement also raises the prospect of the return of forces associated with Sudan’s former regime. It criticises what it describes as the deliberate failure to prohibit the participation of the National Congress Party, the Islamic Movement, and their associated fronts. Allowing such forces into the process, it argues, could open the way for the political rehabilitation of the regime overthrown by Sudan’s December Revolution, which the coalition says bears fundamental responsibility for igniting and perpetuating the current war.

Yet the signatories insist that dialogue between Sudanese actors remains essential. Their objection is not to political engagement itself, but to the idea that dialogue can substitute for ending the war, or be used to legitimise political realities imposed by military force.

Instead, they call for a comprehensive, integrated, and nationally owned peace process, conducted on the basis of parity and equality, held in a neutral location, and supported by constructive regional and international engagement.

Such a process, they argue, must proceed along three connected tracks: an immediate humanitarian truce and cessation of hostilities, enabling safe and unrestricted aid to reach millions displaced by the conflict; comprehensive political negotiations addressing the underlying causes of Sudan’s repeated cycles of civil war since independence; and direct negotiations between the two warring parties to secure a final and sustainable ceasefire.

The coalition calls on the Quintet mechanism, the African Union, the United Nations, regional governments, and international partners not to confer legitimacy on dialogue initiatives conducted under what it calls “the authority of the gun”. International efforts, it says, should instead focus on supporting a nationally owned Sudanese peace process, ending the war, protecting civilians, and providing humanitarian assistance within a constructive regional and international partnership.

The statement sets out a broader political vision beginning with an urgent end to violence and hostilities, the protection of civilians, and safe and unrestricted humanitarian access to all affected areas. These, it argues, are fundamental prerequisites for creating an environment in which a credible peace process can take place.

It also calls for stronger coordination among independent civilian actors, arguing that trust and consultation must be expanded to develop a shared political vision reflecting the priorities and aspirations of the Sudanese people.

Any peace process, the coalition says, must be genuinely Sudanese-owned and independent of either party to the war. It must also address the historical roots and underlying causes of the crisis that have repeatedly drawn Sudan into conflict.

Central to that process must be the meaningful participation of those most directly affected by the war. Women, young people, internally displaced people, refugees, trade unions, and local and grassroots organisations must all have a genuine role in shaping both the peace process and the future of the Sudanese state.

Ultimately, the coalition argues, Sudan needs more than another redistribution of power among political and military elites. A lasting settlement must lead to civilian transitional arrangements capable of delivering justice and accountability, rebuilding state institutions, and laying the foundations for a state based on equal citizenship, the rule of law, and democratic civilian governance.

“Genuine peace”, the statement concludes, cannot be built under the sponsorship of one of the parties to the war, nor reduced to a redistribution of power while civilians continue to be bombed and their suffering continues. Peace must begin with ending the violence and protecting civilians, before opening the way for a nationally owned political process in which civilians and affected communities can participate genuinely and meaningfully.

* See the complete statement below

---