Geneva talks: No excuse for Sudan government’s absence

Dr. Elwathiq Kameir

The Sudanese Armed Forces-allied government expressed concerns about participating in the Geneva talks. The government put forward a series of conditions that are unlikely to be met in further bilateral negotiations with the US government, including: (1) fulfilling the commitments of the Jeddah Declaration; (2) insisting on excluding the UAE and IGAD; and (3) seeking to restore the Jeddah Platform. In addition, the construction of the government delegation is also worrying.

As will be discussed below, these concerns are no reason to undermine the Sudanese people’s hopes for an end to the conflict.

Interactive Dialogue Progress

The report of Minister Bashir Abu Namou, head of the negotiating delegation, on the bilateral talks between the Sudanese and American governments held in Jeddah helped us understand the Sudanese Government’s position and presented a picture of fruitful cooperation.

The Sudanese delegation raised six concerns to the US envoy, including those related to preconditions and a number of other concerns. The head of the delegation’s report presents a positive and detailed response from the head of the US delegation, Special Envoy Tom Perillo. According to the report, the United States expressed opposition to “the existence of the RSF or the political role it plays in Sudan’s future. Sudan’s future will be determined by the Sudanese people, who completely reject the RSF.” The United States also condemned the atrocities and violations committed by the RSF, which led the United States to impose sanctions on some RSF members. The report states that “the United States does not place the RSF on the same moral and legal footing as the Sudanese Armed Forces, and potential Geneva talks will not legitimize the RSF.” The report also lists seven gains that the Sudanese government has received from the bilateral talks, including the US recognition of General Burhan as the Chairman of the Sovereign Council and Head of State, rather than just the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

Ironically, despite all these positive aspects of the interactive dialogue noted by the head of delegation himself, the report still spells out the aforementioned prerequisites.

Nonetheless, the talks provided an opportunity for further dialogue that will continue to build trust and attempt to establish a stable bilateral relationship between Sudan and the United States, upon which the future of the negotiations depends.

However, it is necessary to be specific about the government’s preconditions and why they should not hinder negotiations:

1- Implementation of the Jeddah Declaration

The Sudanese government believes that as long as the commitments of the Jeddah Declaration are not fully implemented, the negotiations should not continue. According to the government delegation’s report, the US envoy fully agrees with “our views on the importance of implementing the Jeddah Declaration”. Therefore, going to Geneva does not contradict the request for the rapid withdrawal of security forces from civilian homes, landmarks and civilian facilities. However, it is unrealistic to expect this to happen before further negotiations. This is indeed why the government must participate in the Geneva negotiations, which, as the United States has pointed out, will focus on how to implement the Jeddah Declaration.

In fact, the Sovereign Council had already drawn up a roadmap for this as early as July 2023. The first phase focused on the separation of forces, and the second phase focused on humanitarian assistance. This could be the basis for future negotiations. If the United States and its mediation partners Saudi Arabia and Switzerland announced that the only agenda in Geneva was to negotiate the implementation of the first phase of the government plan in Jeddah, then it would be in Sudan’s best interest for the Sudanese government to participate in the negotiations. Next would be the second phase on the provision of assistance.

2 – Excluding the UAE and IGAD

I do not think that the presence of the UAE as an observer will cause any harm to Sudan. In fact, the UAE is still accused of fuelling the war by supporting the RSF, making it a stakeholder.

The Geneva talks were not a venue to resolve bilateral relations with the UAE, nor to demand that the government stop drawing attention to and ultimately ending the UAE’s role, nor to demand that it bear the bulk of war damage compensation and reconstruction costs. Far from that, the Geneva talks were simply an opportunity to remind the United States that the UAE’s covert support for the RSF poses a real danger to the security and stability of Sudan and the entire region. It was also an opportunity to put pressure on the UAE in front of the entire international community.

Moreover, the tendency to boycott the Geneva platform seems inconsistent with the government’s previous decision to accept the direct participation of the UAE in the Manama talks held in February this year, although this decision was not publicly announced. Secondly, it seems incompatible with Sudan’s continued diplomatic relations with the UAE, with the ambassador performing normal duties, more than 16 months after the outbreak of the war. Why is it unacceptable for a country to appear with which the former negotiating participant and the government maintain relations? From another perspective, the UAE has been the main gateway for Sudan’s foreign trade since the US sanctions in the 1990s. Even after the war, Sudan’s gold exports to the UAE (through the Abu Dhabi El Nilein Bank) continued.

As for IGAD, it was not mentioned when the United States initially invited it to the negotiations. The US delegation probably suggested it to participate in the negotiations based on its role in the negotiations, but it seems to be happy to be represented by the AU. We believe that IGAD has no meaning in the negotiations, because the “Sudan-Sudan” dialogue is now under the responsibility of the African Union, which started preparatory dialogues in mid-July.

3 – Move the negotiation venue from Jeddah to Geneva

What is wrong with the negotiations being held in Geneva instead of Jeddah? I believe that the venue of the negotiations is not determined by the location, but by the agenda and the issues to be discussed, especially since the US envoy confirmed to the government delegation that the Geneva negotiations will be an extension of the Jeddah talks. What is the problem if the Geneva conference will discuss military issues instead of the political process described in the Jeddah Declaration? In addition, the Cairo meeting of political and civil forces held on July 6 stressed the need to abide by the Jeddah Declaration and consider the mechanisms for its implementation and development to keep pace with the changing war situation. The Geneva conference is very suitable to consider these mechanisms.

4- Nature of the government negotiating delegation

Another point of contention between the Sudanese government and the United States is the U.S. government’s demand that the government’s negotiating team be led by a senior military officer with full decision-making authority. The United States is seeking high-level representation from all relevant partners, and this also applies to the Sudanese armed forces.

I believe that this problem can be solved by making practical proposals to include both military and non-military leaders. In fact, we can learn from the experience of the previous regime in the negotiations with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), when the government delegation was led by the Secretary-General of the ruling party, while the military negotiations were led by the Chiefs of Staff of both parties. In the second phase, focusing on humanitarian assistance, subject matter experts may be included in the delegation. The government’s opposition to having a military commander lead the Geneva negotiation delegation may also be seen as inconsistent, given that the government delegation in Jeddah was led by Major General Mahagoob Bushra and the Rapid Support Forces delegation was led by Brigadier General Omar Hamdan, both of whom are army officers.

In conclusion, the government’s refusal to participate in the Geneva talks is not in the interest of Sudan and the Sudanese people, whose hope is to end the war and return to their homes. The government should make full use of the achievements and gains of the interactive dialogue – as outlined by the head of the delegation report, which it may lose by boycotting the upcoming negotiations. Such a refusal would mean rejecting the mediation of the United States, which has been elevated by the direct participation of the Secretary of State, the involvement of the White House, and the appointment of a special envoy by the President. This could damage the government’s credibility. So, is it really in the best interest of the country to alienate the United States and other stakeholders in the international community?

Dr. Kamel is a freelance researcher and political analyst. He was previously a professor at the University of Khartoum and a senior program specialist at the International Development Research Center (IDRC). He is a prolific and influential commentator on Sudanese current affairs. STPT is honored to have him as one of our contributors.