The most significant development in Sudan was the meeting held between the civilian opposition front for the war, the civilian coalition (Taqadum), and Rapid Support Forces Commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti). This was the first time that the RDF commander met with a Sudanese political group since he disappeared for over six months. Before delving into the meeting and its outcomes, we can claim that it was certainly a controversial meeting, and it is completely understandable that opinions are divided about it.
The debate is not between the supporters or opponents of the Rapid Support Forces, nor between those who think the RSF supports democracy and the civil transition, and those who claim the RSF are tribal militias that have committed many crimes and should be wiped off the face of the earth. I am certain that everyone recognizes what the Rapid Support Forces are and the crimes they have committed during this war.
The controversial question is whether Taqadum leaders meeting the RSD is in the interest of the country and peace.
Those who objected to the meeting argue that the actions of the Rapid Support Forces amount to a military coup and an attempt to seize power and that they have committed grave, unforgivable crimes. Thus, the only solution is to keep waging this war against them until they are completely defeated. Others agree with this assessment but believe that mediators and leaders of countries working to find a solution to the Sudanese conflict could justifiably hold meetings with RSF leaders. However, they argue that no Sudanese party should do so and that doing so amounts to a grave national betrayal because it confers unwarranted legitimacy to the RSF commander.
On the other side, many supporters of the meeting have been against the war and working to put an end to it from the start. Others may not disagree about the nature of the Rapid Support Forces or the crimes they have committed; however, they believe that nine months of war have led to nothing but the destruction of all aspects of life in Sudan as the capabilities of the Sudanese army continuously declined, which suggest defeating the Rapid Support Forces militarily is not feasible. Thus, they argue, it would be best to work to end the war through negotiation. This group believes that the continuation of the war engenders an environment conducive to more crimes. Thus, ending this war is the first step toward ending these crimes, before it is followed by investigations, trials, and reparations.
Was it easy for the leaders and members of Taqadum to meet and shake hands with Hemedti? I don't think so. Most of them, perhaps all of them, have been hurt by this war, specifically by the Rapid Support Forces, who have raided their homes, looted their and their relatives’ cars and property, and killed their direct or indirect associates. Among them is the head of the Democratic Forces, Dr. Hamdok, and some of his ministers and former officials, who were overthrown and imprisoned by the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese army command.
Thus, if it were a question of personal history and harm, most of them would have been opposed to the meeting and handshake. However, in these difficult times, they acted in service of what they believed to be the national interest, whether people agreed with them or not. A politician is defined as someone who takes risks and makes difficult decisions that he believes are correct, even if people disagree with them. Certainly, he must be prepared to pay the price if the decision turns out to be misguided. In my opinion, that applies to what the Taqadum leadership has done. They made major sacrifices and overcame serious grievances in an attempt to save the nation, and were met with accusations and insults. If their efforts to stop the war succeed, that would be their reward. If this step fails or leads to negative results, they will pay the price with their political future.
For my part, I believe that it was not necessary to delve into the details of the political process with any of the conflicting parties at this stage. Negotiations should have been confined to practical steps to stop the war, while political dialogues involving a wider range of political groups should have continued. The dominance of "Freedom and Change Forces" in these meetings seems like a setback for the idea of expanding the participation of civil society in the broader sense. It reflects a failure to integrate the social segments most affected by the war in Darfur, Al Jazirah, and other areas of Sudan threatened by war in Eastern and Northern Sudan. However, these matters are open for discussion and debate and do not diminish the importance of this step.
This meeting opened a window for peace. Significant efforts and a broader vision are needed to ensure that peace is established and the aspirations of the people of Sudan are met.
