Running on Refinery Fuel!!
As I See
Adil El-Baz
1
The above phrase was used by Professor Omar Al-Digair in an article he published the day before yesterday (“Amnesty” and the Call for a Dialogue That Does Not Put an End to the War). Before I begin this article, I say to the professor: God knows who is “running on refinery fuel” these days—that temporary, spent fuel that is incapable of keeping the burning train of the nation moving, and can do little more than produce thick smoke that obscures the facts before us.
2
Over the past two days, social media platforms have been flooded with writings by leaders of “Somoud,” all of whom reject Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue inside the country, set conditions, and mock the army’s talk of legal exemptions for them. Yesterday, we responded to Mr. Mubarak Al-Fadil, and these people are part of the “orchestra” playing the same tunes as Mr. Mubarak, except that Mr. Mubarak’s call is being played on a five-note scale, while the others’ call is set to the rhythm of the Quartet. There is therefore no need to repeat our arguments in refuting claims that have proven to have no legs to stand on. Instead, I will examine two ideas adopted by both Yasser Arman and Omar Al-Digair, which were absent from Babiker Faisal’s article.
3
The idea advocated by Omar and Yasser is to “invite the army to dialogue exclusively with Somoud and no one else”—meaning that Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue would be closed and exclusive, effectively excluding everyone inside the country and creating a dialogue reserved for one group.
Why should the army engage exclusively with Somoud? Is it because Somoud still enjoys revolutionary legitimacy after everything that has happened in the country? Or because it is the force calling for an end to the war and therefore deserves to be engaged in dialogue? Or because it is the force backed from abroad, the favored child of the Quartet, with an influential sponsor capable of financing the war or cutting off its funding? Or because it is an ally of the militia and leans on its guns?
Mr. Yasser Arman broadened the issue somewhat by asking in his article: “Why doesn’t the army meet directly with the Forces for the Declaration of Principles, Somoud, and the Radicals?” The Forces for the Declaration of Principles, which have split among themselves, and the Radicals, an amorphous bloc that includes every shade of the left; according to Yasser’s proposal, the army should engage exclusively with these blocs and throw all other civilian and popular forces, as well as those who supported it during the war, outside the dialogue process. How astonishing, my friend! You call for dialogue while boarding trains of madness. If Imad Al-Din were still alive, I would ask him and Adel Mohammed Khair to produce a new play entitled “The Madhouse” instead of “The Women’s Madhouse,” and I would suggest casting Rasha Awad as the lead actress in place of Nadia Ahmed Babiker, may she be remembered fondly. By the way, Rasha Awad could perform the role brilliantly; her ability to portray political madness is unparalleled!
4
It seems to me that these people are living in a state of delusion and have no sense of what is happening in the political reality. They assume that the army, or the army commander, can sideline all other forces and engage exclusively with them under external pressure—and, before all that, he must stop the war! The truth is that neither the army as a whole nor its commander can respond to Yasser’s group by agreeing to an exclusive dialogue. Those were the dreams of the Framework Agreement—dreams that swept them and the entire country into turmoil—and no one will dare to imagine them, let alone repeat them. Blood was shed beneath the hooves of that foolish idea, and thousands were killed to bury it. It is over.
The Sudanese people are now in a different valley, one the opposition has neither heard of nor knows: the “Valley of Dignity.” They emerged demanding dignity when the Janjaweed and mercenaries invaded their land, violated their honor, looted their money, and destroyed their country. This valley was embodied by the convoys of popular resistance and by citizens joining the armed forces in the trenches in towns and villages. It was abandoned by the Somoud activists, the Radicals, and the agents. This people cannot be returned to the politics of exclusion, no matter who tries.
5
As for the demand shared by Yasser Arman and Babiker Faisal, it is the exclusion of the Islamists. This is a demand they have advocated since the days of their early ignorance, and neither the passing years nor their experiences have taught them a useful lesson. Even in old age, they have failed to understand that the Islamists are not floating scum that can simply be swept away by hand or removed at the request of the ruler. They are a social force that has existed for seventy years, and they have as much right to the country as anyone else, not to mention all the sacrifices they have made in the current Battle of Dignity.
They imagined that once the Bashir regime fell, they would be able to eliminate the Islamist movement—the same movement that ruled for thirty years, then used various tactics to remove them from power within three years, turning their revolution into ashes and scattered dust.
They tried to exclude them under the Framework Agreement, only to be the first to flee into exile. Yet the political movement does not learn from its experiences and continues to repeat them foolishly. Now those calling for the exclusion of Islamists from the dialogue—do they really expect the country to become stable for them? Do they expect the Islamists to simply accept their exclusion, lay down their guns, leave their trenches, and return home, abandoning the field for Yasser, Babiker Faisal, and their associates to do whatever they please? You people suffering from “Kouzphobia,” may God cure you. Say something else for a change!
6
The question that will cross the mind of anyone following the political scene is: What is this list of demands based on? Is it based on a sweeping popular movement that threatens the authorities in Sudan? Or on an armed force that is now allied with the guns of its partners—despite the astonishing fact that these forces are suffering one setback after another? Or is it based on foreign powers betting on their pressure on the government and the army to submit, kneel, and carry out their orders, allowing these political forces to return to power on the back of that foreign support? There are so many illusions in this country. The reality is that there is nothing within these illusions that can actually be achieved.
7
These political forces and those dreaming of power will remain in exile, “running on refinery fuel,” until it runs out. Then despair will swallow them, and they will return to their country empty-handed and disappointed—with neither political power nor any national achievement to their name. They will spend the rest of their lives wandering blindly in the darkness of their own illusions.
The only path to Sudan’s salvation is not through closed-door talks and narrow, exclusive arrangements, but through an inclusive national dialogue that excludes no one—a dialogue that lays the foundations for a state that accommodates everyone, without exclusion or foreign tutelage.
