Amin Hassan Omar Calls for a Comprehensive Settlement to whoever knocks on Doors

A Call for a Comprehensive Settlement.
Amin Hassan Omar.
To Who knocks on Doors?

Sudan Events – Abdul Basset Idris

The prominent leader of the Islamic movement, Dr. Amin Hassan Omar, called for a comprehensive solution to the country’s crisis and dialogue with the broad left. He praised the positions of Abdul-Wahed Nour and Abdul-Aziz Al-Hilu on the war on the militia. What are the significance of the call and its timing, and why did it come out of him specifically, and will it pave the way for a future political step?
Amin’s Discourse:
Amin Hassan Omar told Al Jazeera that he sees a horizon for a political settlement with all Sudanese political forces, but there is no horizon for a settlement with the militia, stressing that there will be no stability in Sudan without national unity, a comprehensive settlement, and the Sudanese coming together as a whole to build the country. He added, “One faction cannot build the country even if it has the majority.”
Amin explained in his talk to the “Atheer” program, on Al Jazeera’s podcast, that the Sudanese Islamic Movement can sit with Forces o freedom and change (FFC), and with the broad leftist movement, and he said, “But not to sit with the small group called the Central Council, which is a small, puppet elite. I am talking about Sitting with the leftist movement in general in Sudan and the movement that opposes the Islamists, which is a broader movement… now the rebels against the state; Abdul Wahed Mohamed Nour’s people are fighting in El Fasher alongside the army. Why is this happening? Because we were fighting over an issue, now the whole country is in danger. Now 80% of the armed movements are fighting with the army, and this is evidence that the people were fighting because they differed in branches; Now they felt that the risk to the assets themselves, the country’s origin, was in danger.”
He revealed that the Islamic Movement took a decision not to participate in any civil or military position except through elections, and said: “The problem was not that we lost power, but rather that we lost public opinion, and after 5 years of anger against the Islamists, the anger has disappeared, because we are now at the forefront of the National Movement because of our participation in fighting and defending the country at a crucial stage.”
He added, “Whoever thinks that this militia is Sudanese does not know the facts. The militia’s goal is to destroy the state… and the militia is obedient to what the outside wants it to do.”
Beyond the talk:
Amin Omar’s speech, which is consistent with what was made by the leader and minister of the former regime, Ibrahim Ghandour, indicates that the Islamic Movement has decided to push its most important leaders into the political arena. The movement and its dissolved party, after having been for a strange time under intense public and external pressure and systematic targeting by the transitional authority. After the revolution and change, to put an end to it, you may want to say that the restrictions campaigns it was subjected to did not affect its structure and the unity of its membership, and no bulldozing occurred in its deep presence in Sudanese soil, and from this point and with the exit of Amin Hassan Omar, who is known for his ability to delve into the depths of the crisis and emerge with the narrowest chances of resolving it. There is a message that you would like to deposit in the mail of those lurking abroad, stating that it is a mass movement that is resistant to targeting and liquidation, and that it still has the reins of profound influence on the course of political events in the present and the near future at least.
Is the dialogue equal?
While Amin, as one of the most prominent people sitting in the conflict management booth, intended to call for a comprehensive settlement and dialogue with the broad left at this time as an important factor for the success of the dialogue, and perhaps he saw that the circumstances were appropriate in light of the maturation of the general national situation encouraging engagement in a comprehensive settlement that would culminate in a broader national consensus, the opportunities now appear. Equal. From the point of view of its opponents, the Islamic Movement and its dissolved party lost power through a popular revolution that uprooted its regime. For its part, it is out of power through a coup against its legitimacy, but it is still present. As for the FFC Alliance and People’s Force parties, and even those that advanced, they are now out of power after the army overthrew them on the twenty-fifth of October. The other, more important matter is that all the opposing political parties received the message of the army, which was confirmed by its Commander-in-Chief, Lieutenant-General Al-Burhan, not to return to what was before the Ingaz, or FFC, or the fifteenth of April, in addition to what was revealed by the Assistant Army Commander, Lieutenant-General Yasser Al-Atta, that the future stage will be constitutive and without the participation of political parties, as everyone is now outside the corridors of governance and government, and this seems to be the general context and the most important indicator of the significantce of Dr.’s proposal of the call for settlement and dialogue.
Foundations of settlement and issues of dialogue:
The leader of the original Arab Socialist Baath Party, Mohammad Diya al-Din, said in his response to the question of (Sudan Events) about Amin Omar’s call for settlement and dialogue, saying, “I think that Dr. Amin is not speaking here on behalf of the Islamic movement. The man used phrases with clear connotations (I see/I speak (All of them are signs that express a personal opinion. I hope that the purpose is not to test the pulse of a (boatman) call.
He said, “If the Islamic movement is really serious about heading towards a dialogue with the left (and God knows best), then it must actually move forward. Then the answer could come from the left or other national forces targeted by the dialogue to the extent that the call can be judged after reading its content and goals.” Every position has an article.
Exclusionary tone:
The prominent leader of the Taqaddam Front, Orwa Al-Sadiq, told Sudan Events that it is necessary to recognize the importance of strengthening the spirit of tolerance and mutual respect between the different parties in order to reach a comprehensive political solution, and to encourage constructive dialogue based on fair opportunities, discussion, and reasoning with evidence (the power of logic), not (the logic of force). ), instead of resorting to exclusion, extremism, violence and hate speech, intellectual, cultural and political diversity in Sudan can enrich the debate and contribute to developing comprehensive and balanced policies for the benefit of the entire society, in light of mutual recognition and not arrogant and exclusionary tones such as those advocated by Amin, describing the latter’s speech as, It is a result of a temporary meeting of opposing ideologies such as the right and the left. It is a wishful meeting that has nothing to do with the concerns of citizens and the nation, and it could have a negative impact on the public and political dialogue in society and on the future of political life. He added, “Pragmatism and political opportunism can push each party towards adopting extremist positions with the aim of excluding “Balanced movements (such as Taqadum or FFC), and when great focus is placed on proving the superiority of the alliance (the ideological movement, right and left) and the existence of the idea of ​​one party at the expense of the other, this can lead to deepening divisions and disturbing the desired public dialogue,” Orwa maintains that there is no room for the Muslim Brothers movement, especially the National Congress Group and its dissolved party and its facades, to enter into any peaceful political equation. Therefore, they chose to block the path of revolution with a series of coups, and when some of them were aborted, they resorted to war, which is the choice of the helpless, who see that the future has passed them by and will languish at the bottom of history unless they review their ideas and practices and apologize for their actions. Their atrocities and crimes, and they are committed to bringing them to justice and not allowing their criminals to escape punishment.
L And reducing the central group or of FFC “Taqaddum ” – according to Orwa –
It is the argument of every tyrant, because this bloc is not entities but rather an alliance of political, factional, professional and sectoral alliances.
He adds: “All of this does not mean that this body represents the majority, and its representatives do not claim this claim, but it has what qualifies it to participate in shaping the features of Sudan’s future in terms of struggle, politics, effectiveness, and presence on the ground in Sudan.” He added, “No one can exclude it, so its leaders are striving to end the war and open the doors of mediation to end it, while Dr. Amin and his group are active in fanning its fire so that they can disappear and hide their crimes under its smoke and practice the exclusion of opponents by force of coercion and the power of iron and fire.”
The communist replies:
Member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Kamal Karar, told (Sudan Events ) that Amin Hassan Omar and his party were overthrown by the people in their witnessed revolution, and the National Congress committed massacres and crimes against the people and the homeland, in addition to plunder and corruption. He added, “Unfortunately, the transitional government after the revolution did not take serious steps toward this file, and for us, the National Congress has fallen and has no place in the transitional scene, as it is an integral party in this accursed war, and therefore we do not pay attention to the talk of its members, and there is no settlement with the remnants, murderers, and coup plotters, and the revolution is progressing steadily towards its witnessed victory.”
Conflict between right and left:
Professor of Political Sciences Dr. Hisham Mohamed Ahmed said that the political conflict in Sudan has many reasons, but the most important is:
going on between the forces of the right and the left, and Hisham believes that this conflict is not the result of competitive programs related to programs, but rather it is about fundamental issues that should have been resolved a long time ago, most notably the relationship of religion, the state, and identity, indicating that the success of any dialogue between the Islamists and the forces of the left must be based on the basis for dealing with these issues, calling for taking the resulting positions from each party as a constitutional framework that leads to the formulation of a permanent constitution with supra-constitutional principles that are binding”