The Path to Peace in Sudan

By David L. Phillips

The meeting of Sudan’s armed factions in Jedda is a step in the right direction; dialogue is always preferable to armed conflict. To meaningfully advance peace in Sudan, talks must include terms of a ceasefire, conditions for humanitarian access, and a process for political dialogue addressing the root causes of conflict.

I worked with Martin Griffiths, the UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, during the peace process for Aceh, Indonesia. Mr Griffiths is a skilled diplomat with vast experience in peacemaking and peacebuilding. Based on his previous experience, international mediation will likely focus initially on a “humanitarian pause”

A humanitarian pause is akin to a ceasefire, launching a process that addresses the human costs of armed conflict. It typically includes a cessation of hostilities in order to protect civilians and allow them to escape fighting. This means a break in the fighting in designated areas, so-called safe-havens. A humanitarian pause identifies hospitals and care centres where violence is forbidden. It is established for a specific period of time and includes a  monitoring mechanism to observe and report on ceasefire violations. It is linked to humanitarian access and, ultimately, to negotiations on sustainable peace.

“Humanitarian access” concerns the ability of humanitarian actors on the ground to reach affected populations. Access, a necessary pre-requisite to effective humanitarian action, includes the ability of civilians to get humanitarian assistance and services. Full and unimpeded access is necessary to create an environment for the effective operations of aid agencies, including the movement of goods, materials and services. It also encompasses the distribution of food, water, and health services for the wounded, as well as obstetric care for expecting mothers.

Negotiations are undertaken parallel to relieving human suffering. Political talks must address the root causes of conflict to create an environment so stabilization and reconstruction can proceed. In the Sudan case, neither the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) nor the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) are willing to meet face-to-face without third-party mediation. A respected and neutral third party can play this role, and coordinate a role of the African Union and IGAD as a neutral party.

When an agreement ends hostilities, Sudan will need a “peace dividend”. An international donors’ conference is usually convened by the UN and international financial institutions after there’s a peace agreement. The international community should lay the groundwork for a donors conference through discreet discussions that establish a framework for reconstruction assistance as well as preliminary commitment from donor countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Assistance must have no strings attached to avoid politicization.

I led a “Civil Society Task Force” in Aceh for Mr Griffiths when he headed the Henri Dunant Center for Humanitarian Dialogue. The buy-in of civil society is essential to reach an agreement, as well as making sure that the agreement is sustainable. The Aceh task force included professionals, women’s groups, parliamentarians, and religious leaders. A similar civil society task force can play a role, encouraging Sudan’s warring factions to join negotiations, show good faith, and abide by their commitments.

Sudan already has an active civil society, with knowledge of traditional conflict resolution mechanisms. The Forces for Freedom and Change and neighbourhood Resistance Committees could morph into a new informal mechanism to advance the peace process.

Sudan is teetering on the edge of becoming a failed state. Fortunately, Mr Griffiths is a pro who can bring his international experience to bear. The process of peacebuilding, however, needs a heavyweight to motivate the parties by applying clout toward the realization of a successful outcome. The United States is best placed for this role alongside the Troika, which includes the United Kingdom and Norway.

Some will assert there’s no peace without justice and demand accountability for the perpetrators of events in Sudan since April 15. Timing is important. If leaders of the RSF and SAF know they’ll face charges by the International Criminal Court, they will be far less likely to make concessions. Deferring justice does not mean that justice is denied.

Sudan has huge potential and needs a peace process to get back on track. International engagement is critical. Well-intentioned parties can play a role fostering dialogue. They must also be wary of spoilers who seek to profit from the country’s collapse.

Mr. Phillips is Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, Security Studies Program. He served as Senior Adviser to the UN”s Office for the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs and at the US State Department during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.