FFC Statement on Medani Attack: War Expanding by Active Action (1-2)

By: Abdullah Ali Ibrahim

The attack by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) against the capital of Gezira State, the city of Wad Medani (120 miles south of Khartoum), which was named in the 16th-century after the Sufi saint, Mohammad Al-Amin Wad Medani Al-Sunni, was a turning point that portended the expansion of the war, up to this day has been confined to Khartoum, to central and Riverean Sudan. Of course, the RSF expanded its war in Western Sudan, capturing several cities. This is an escalation that “puts sticks in the wheel” of negotiations to stop the war, whether in the Jeddah platform or the IGAD organization. What made the attack on Medani worse is that this town is a shelter for about 68,000 displaced people from Khartoum, in addition to its population of more than half a million. Relief organizations have made it a center to reach people in need, but the attack forced them to stop many of their operations. The United Nations relief program stopped providing assistance to 800,000 displaced people in the areas it was helping in the city. United Nations agencies said that 3 million children are at risk as a result of the advance of “RSF” in Gezira State. Aid will be cut off for 150,000 children in the state, let alone the groups of its residents were forced to leave for the southern states, hand in hand with those who took refuge there from Khartoum, getting into the unknown for the second time.
The first thing that came to us about the concept of escalation in this war, was on the occasion of the “RSF” attack on the town of Wad Ashana in eastern Kordofan State on the first day of last October. Britain alone warned of the danger to the outcome of the war in Sudan posed by the RSF’s control of this town due to its strategic location. If the RSF manage it, the door will be opened for it to attack other states until it ends in Khartoum. The concept of escalation turned into a discourse of war in which civilian parties such as the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) were just satisfied with the demand to stop the war. There is no stopping of the war as it spreads in areas where we have lost the security of those who were displaced to it, waiting for its end to return to their homes. The displaced are a trust in the hands of those calling for an end to the war. No to war is said in the face of those who said yes, out of compassion for the Sudanese people who are enduring a “futile” war, in which citizens have no benefit in it, just being the victim of two generals who were overtaken by the lust for rule.
After the occupation of Wad Ashana, people wondered whether the “No to War” call, the slogan raised by “FFC”, had turned into a political and cultural energy capable of confronting the monsters of war and imposing the will of peace on them in one way or another. The answer was not something that “FFC” was happy with. The call does not have an impact in the street, mobilizing people not only about the meaning of stopping the war, but also about overcoming the scourge of the lack of fruits resulting from it and meeting needs as well. The escalation occurred last week in the state of Gezira and the occupation of its capital, Wad Medani. A statement was issued by “FFC” in this regard (December 16), which did not convince anyone, even some of its members. In its statement, “FFC” expressed its concern, as the war entered its ninth month, about “the expansion of the war into new areas in several cities, most notably Al-Fasher, Medani , and Al-Odiya,” in addition to the attack on civilians with artillery and air strikes in residential areas in Nyala and Khartoum. “FFC” insisted on rejecting the war, expanding its scope, and turning it into a civil war that would result in an increase in the scale of human suffering. It considers the expansion of the scope of military operations and include areas inhabited by displaced persons fleeing the war. “FFC” held the forces participating in the fighting on both sides, and the groups associated with them present in those areas and under their control, fully morally, politically and criminally responsible.
Many were surprised by the silence of the “FFC” statement not to mention one of the two sides in the war, the “RSF”, which was behind the war “expanded” to Wad Medani and other cities. This is what the cultural activist Omer Ashari, who is close to FFC, blamed it. He described the Rapid Support movement towards Wad Medani as “barbaric, stupid, and transgressive, like brutal violations, the most horrific of which was the extermination of the Massalit in Darfur.” He said, “This move harasses citizens, not the army.” He expressed his objections to the “FFC” statement. He praised its timing, but criticized its silence about mentioning who was behind the attack on Wad Medani . He saw this as a symptom of “the weakness of the civilian component and its clear fear of provoking the anger of the RSF. The call for ‘no to war’ should not, in his words, become ‘a case of burying heads in the sand.'” Oshari criticized the statement for not treating the attack on the city as an independent event. Medani came there accidentally in the context of the “extension of the war” to cities, including El Fasher, where the confrontation between the army and the “RSF” stopped for weeks, although the situation remained tense.
Because Wad Medani’s situation was independent and at the forefront at the time the statement was written, Oshari waited for “FFCt” to condemn the attack, separately, away from previous violations by both parties.
To be continued.
A statement was issued by Taqaddam two days ago that matched FFC’s statement, as it based the expansion of the war to Medani on the unknown.