Complex questions occupy the minds of the Sudanese. Those are not only related to when the war will stop, but also to how it will end, through which kind of agreements, and to the fate of the two warring sides. Will they return as if nothing had happened, sharing power, wealth and influence...?
Who is responsible for the killing and devastation that has happened, and is still happening? Who will hold accountable those who caused all the destruction, and those who paved the way for this calamity...? How, when and by what means will they be held liable? Then comes the biggest question... How to work with the military, especially the Rapid Support Forces... Can their presence be accepted in any way...?
These are legitimate questions that naturally resonate in people’s minds. However, they need to be reorganized and perhaps divided into stages, even though they all reflect the general fear.
The great and fundamental concern is how and when the war will stop, and all other questions depend on it. There is no way to answer them if the war does not end. Because they will remain floating in the air as if they were merely philosophical theses for mediation.
We can notice in the many writings spread in the media, by writers, activists, and Sudanese concerned with the general situation, that some link their position on the war to answering other questions related to the post-war stage, so they say that they are against the fighting and for peace, but... then they raise many questions related to the situation after the war.
The problem with these opinions and positions is that they all wait for answers from a certain unknown or known party, as if it held all the cards of the game and had the right to decide on the end of the war, its outcome, and the fate of its sides.
The truth is that such party does not exist, and those who are waiting for it are similar to those who desperately wait for “Godot” in the novel by the Irish author Samuel Beckett. No one owns these answers, nor should they be owned or monopolized by any party. Everyone has a role and responsibility to try to answer these concerns.
Despite the relevance of these questions and the necessity for some parties to address them in order to have some general lines of answers when the time comes, it does not make sense to regard them as a condition for determining the position on the war.
Expecting answers by one party simply means a prevailing state of submission, dependence, and laziness among those who are supposed to assume a pioneering role in society. It also reflects, to a certain degree, little awareness of the extent of the tragedy that the country and its people are experiencing, as if they have given their national and humanitarian conscience a leave.
The numbers revealed by international humanitarian organizations are extremely frightening and alarming. Thousands of civilians were killed, millions were displaced from war zones to what they thought were safe areas, and millions more took refuge in neighboring countries and beyond. The country’s industrial and economic capabilities are in complete destruction, while the war machine is exhausting the remaining resources. The entire country, its institutions and its people are facing an unknown fate.
This situation requires a collective stance and action that crosses political and ideological borders and goes beyond the old alignments, to form a new alliance that ends the war. Then, when the time comes for choosing the form and method of building the state, the alignments can change and each party can decide on the place that meets its convictions.
Limiting the image of war, the positions of the parties to it, and the motives for these positions to two rigid parties, “No to war” on the one hand, and “Yes to war,” even if it leads to the annihilation of all sides - with simple explanations that sometimes reach the point of naivety - is simple-minded and wrong, as evidenced by the fact that not all of these positions were formed from day one, for both blocs.
It is true that there were forces seeking to ignite the war, and there were people and political forces against the fighting from the first day. Nonetheless, the two blocs were formed and their positions matured as the conflict evolved. Both were later joined by other groups after they saw the outcome of the war. This is why the motives of each bloc vary, and a great movement is taking place within each of them.
The Sudanese political and social forces, as well as writers and intellectuals, who are aware of the horror of the conflict and its consequences, need to focus their efforts on stopping the war. These forces must converge, even if they differ in post-war perceptions, and line up under this banner until they cross the bridge to security and peace. Then, they can disagree, and at least if the war stops, they will find a homeland to disagree on and within, instead of disputing in exile and host countries.
