{"id":20130973,"date":"2026-04-15T17:39:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T15:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dabangasudan.org\/?p=20130973"},"modified":"2026-04-15T17:39:05","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T15:39:05","slug":"legitimacy-dilemma-and-sovereignty-concerns-an-analysis-of-why-both-sides-of-the-conflict-rejected-the-berlin-conference","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dabangasudan.org\/en\/all-news\/article\/legitimacy-dilemma-and-sovereignty-concerns-an-analysis-of-why-both-sides-of-the-conflict-rejected-the-berlin-conference","title":{"rendered":"Legitimacy dilemma and sovereignty concerns: an analysis of why both sides of the conflict rejected the Berlin conference"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Ashraf Abdelaziz for Radio Dabanga<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political and diplomatic polarisation over the Sudan crisis is intensifying as the Third International Conference on Sudan<\/a> convenes in Berlin at a highly complex moment, seeking to mobilise international support to end the war and alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe. Despite the momentum surrounding the gathering, with participation from civilian alliances such as Summud and the Democratic Bloc, the official and practical stance of the two warring parties and their allies has been marked by hostility and opposition. This raises fundamental questions about the reasons behind this rejection and its implications for the future of a political solution in the country.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The right course between international legitimacy and political intransigence:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The writer and political analyst Qurashi Awad argues that the Berlin conference represents a serious attempt to return the Sudanese issue to its proper course, pointing to the weight of the international and regional organisations involved, of which Sudan is a member. Awad suggests that the government\u2019s refusal to participate may stem from not receiving a direct official invitation, but rather one extended to figures close to it. He describes this as a missed opportunity of rare significance, noting that the conference, given its European and regional backing, holds a legitimacy exceeding that of any transient political alliances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Awad adds that clinging to negotiating positions as preconditions sends a negative message to the international community, portraying the rejecting parties as opposed to peace. He also warns that such intransigence does not serve international allies such as Russia and China, but instead places them in an awkward position globally. In his view, political prudence would have dictated welcoming this international platform, which affirms Sudan\u2019s unity and sovereignty, rather than relying on courting factions within Congress or exploiting tensions in strategic waterways. The international community, he argues, will not accept the obstruction of humanitarian aid or the rejection of civilian solutions under any justification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The propaganda dimension and the struggle of hidden agendas through the lens of the \u201cbattle of dignity\u201d:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast to the view that Berlin offers an opportunity for resolution, the writer and political analyst Makki El Maghribi presents a sharply different assessment, describing the conference\u2019s stated humanitarian aims as \u201cpropaganda rhetoric\u201d detached from reality. He cites the silence of participating civilian groups regarding the siege and starvation in El Fasher as evidence, arguing that the conference is fundamentally \u201ca political conference par excellence\u201d aimed at weakening the national front supporting the armed forces in the so-called \u201cbattle of dignity\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

El Maghribi goes further, suggesting that one of Berlin\u2019s objectives is to create a breach within the national bloc backing the army and draw parts of it towards alliances with groups claiming neutrality, which he characterises as political fronts for the Rapid Support Forces. From this perspective, he argues that rejection of the conference is not merely a diplomatic stance but a necessity to preserve internal cohesion and prevent the legitimisation of forces aligned with what he describes as the rebels\u2019 agenda under the cover of humanitarian work or international initiatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The balance of legitimacy and the challenge facing \u201cstakeholders\u201d under de facto authority:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From another angle, El Misbah Ahmed, head of the media department of the Umma Party, analyses the roots of hostility towards the Berlin conference, attributing them to its principled stance of placing both sides of the conflict in the same category in terms of \u201clack of legitimacy\u201d. He maintains that this approach prompted both parties to adopt adversarial positions, as it undermines attempts by armed actors to impose a fait accompli through force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

El Misbah highlights that the importance of Berlin lies in bringing together the genuine \u201cstakeholders\u201d calling for an end to the war with the international community on a single platform. He describes this as a qualitative development that places the intransigent parties in direct confrontation with international will. He adds that the continuation of a high-cost war is no longer acceptable, and that international pressure is likely to intensify, with the global community unlikely to remain silent in the face of continued fighting. This, he suggests, could push the UN Security Council towards decisive measures that go beyond the preferences of local actors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion: repercussions of diplomatic confrontation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid these developments, and between the support of civilian forces and the rejection by the warring parties, the Berlin conference remains a pivotal moment in the international handling of the Sudan file. While the government and its allies view it as an attempt to impose political guardianship and legitimise the Rapid Support Forces, civilian groups and independent analysts see it as a last opportunity to avoid Chapter VII measures and ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid. Rather than exploiting differences between European and American positions to Sudan\u2019s advantage, the parties\u2019 insistence on their conditions may instead expose the country to harsher international options within the corridors of the UN Security Council.<\/p>\n