Sudanese parties split over Addis Ababa political process

Sudanese political forces have diverged over the quintet international effort to launch a political process aimed at ending the country’s war, with some civilian blocs boycotting the talks while others push to shape the process from within.

The consultations, held in Addis Ababa on July 27, brought together the quintet, comprised of the United Nations, African Union, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), Arab League and European Union.

The National Umma Party, represented in the five-party mechanism consultations in Addis Ababa by a delegation led by Dr Maryam El Sadig El Mahdi, said the political process must begin with a ceasefire, civilian protection, unhindered humanitarian access and confidence-building between Sudanese parties.

The party said these steps should lead to a comprehensive political and security settlement addressing the roots of the conflict, followed by an inclusive national dialogue to establish sustainable peace and a state founded on citizenship, justice and the rule of law.

It also called for the quintet mechanism to unify its mandate and strengthen its structure and working methods, while expanding consultation with Sudanese political forces and experts.

The party said regional and international actors should facilitate, support and guarantee the process rather than impose political paths or solutions.

Civilian blocs boycott talks

The mechanism sought to hold exploratory consultations and establish a preparatory committee for a political process to end the war. But several prominent civilian blocs—including the Sudanese Declaration of Principles forces, Civil Democratic Alliance for Revolutionary Forces (Somoud), and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) aligned Sudan Founding Alliance (Tasees), boycotted the meetings.

The boycotting groups objected to what they described as flaws in the design of the process and the way invitations were issued. They insisted that Sudanese forces should set the agenda, determine who participates and decide where and when negotiations take place.

They also warned against including groups accused of fuelling the war, arguing that doing so could reproduce the crisis rather than resolve it.

‘Somoud questions mechanism’s approach’

Jaafar Hassan, a leader of the Somoud alliance, told Radio Dabanga that the five-party mechanism had continued preparations for a committee without addressing what he described as a fundamental failure to clearly identify the parties and issues involved.

Hassan said previous understandings had envisaged a Sudanese-owned political process in which international actors would act only as facilitators.

He accused the mechanism of repeatedly failing to distinguish between military actors and civilian forces opposed to the war, saying the lack of a response to those concerns prompted the boycott.

People’s Congress rejects participation

Political leader Kamal Omar Abdel Salam said the People’s Congress Party also rejected the process because of the mechanism’s approach to participation.

Omar told Radio Dabanga that the process risked bringing in figures and groups associated with the former National Congress Party and Islamic Movement.

He argued that including those forces would equate groups accused of starting the war and perpetuating authoritarian rule with those seeking democratic transition.

Omar also warned that the approach could strengthen military rule and facilitate the return of elements of the former regime.

Other groups join consultations

The Democratic Bloc and Coordination of National Forces participated in the Addis Ababa consultations, choosing to engage directly with the mechanism and international representatives.

The participating groups held meetings with members of the five-party mechanism, the UN envoy and European Union advisers, where they outlined their conditions for a peace process.

Their positions focused on the military situation on the ground, with participants calling for political dialogue to move into Sudan once conditions allow. They also stressed the need to address security, prevent external support for armed groups and distinguish between state institutions and rebel forces.

The discussions also exposed differences over priorities. International actors focused on humanitarian truces and securing rapid access for aid, while participating Sudanese blocs argued that security and stable civilian life must come first.

They linked the return of displaced people and refugees to the disarmament and withdrawal of the RSF from civilian areas and cities.

Some participants also called on the international community to classify the RSF as a terrorist organisation, halt restrictions affecting national resources such as gold exports, and ensure women, young people and community groups have a role in shaping Sudan’s political future.

The competing positions underline the deep divisions among Sudanese political forces over who should lead the transition and how a political process should address the war.