Non-African peace mediators

Madam,

It has been over a month since fighting broke out in Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary structure, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The clashes were sparked by the struggle for power between two prominent personalities *eneral Abdel Fattah al-%urhan of the SAF and *eneral 0ohamed Hamdan 'agalo of the RSF, who led the country after the 2ctober coup. The coup undermined the democratic reform process, which started after the ousting of the country’s long-time dictator 2mar al-%ashir in .

An estimated people have since lost their lives although the number could be much higher. 2ver people have been forced to leave Sudan while about have been internally displaced. 0illions of Sudanese people have been left without access to basic needs such as food and water and have been cut off from essential services such as health and telecommunications due to the damage in critical infrastructure such as hospitals, power cables, roads and water systems. Should this conflict rage on, the country will be plunged into a catastrophic humanitarian crisis of an enormous magnitude.

Efforts to restore peace and bring the two parties to a ceasefire deal have so far hit a snag with both parties violating a series of ceasefire agreements. Since the beginning of the conflict the African Union (AU)’s calls for a ceasefire have fallen on deaf ears, having been ignored by the leaders of both factions. The AU’s Peace and Security Council (PSC), which is the continental body’s arm for intervening in conflict situations, also issued a statement two days after the outbreak of violence calling for a ceasefire.

INTERFERENCE

In its statement, the PSC strongly reMected ‘external interference that could complicate the situation in Sudan’ and further promised to undertake a field mission to Sudan with a view to engage with all stakeholders in that country. The AU Commission chairperson pledged to visit Sudan in an attempt to bring the conflict to a peaceful resolution. However, neither the PSC’s field mission to Sudan nor the chairperson’s visit have taken place. The delayed visits mean that the AU has not been on the ground in Sudan and it’s not clear if the continental body has made any real efforts towards the restoration of peace other than issuing statements.

It is rather disappointing that non-African countries have taken the lead as mediators in trying to find solutions to the conflict. The US and Saudi Arabia are not uninterested mediators. The US attaches geostrategic importance to Sudan in the context of its geopolitical

rivalry with China and Russia. It may use its mediation role not necessarily to bring lasting peace in Sudan, but to regain to push-back against its main geopolitical rivals. Saudi Arabia also has extensive economic interests in Sudan and had the RSF fighting alongside its forces in

Perhaps the suspension of Sudan from both the AU and the PSC structures following the 2ctober coup has complicated the situation and made it difficult for the AU to act. However, if this conflict is left unaddressed it is likely to destabili]e the region and thus create an even bigger problem with disastrous conseTuences for Africa’s economy. This conflict, therefore, falls firmly within the mandate of the AU.

Having the US and Saudi Arabia as the lead mediators in the Sudanese conflict undermines the policy of ‘African solutions to African problems’. As recent as February, the AU was instrumental in brokering a peace deal between the Ethiopian government forces and the Tigray People’s /iberation Front (TP/F) in Ethiopia and helped bring the two-year civil war to an end.

2ne would have hoped that the AU would assume a similar role in the Sudanese conflict. While external actors may bring vital resources, their interests may not be compatible with durable peace and thus inconsistent with the AU’s Agenda .

Dr Sizo N