Power and War Conflict in Sudan

Zain Al-Abidin Saleh Abdel Rahman

Egyptian government had extended an invitation to the Sudanese political parties for dialogue in Cairo with the aim of reaching a political agreement between the components to which the invitation was extended, and the time period was set to be the end of June, then it was postponed to the seventh of next July, although Egypt extended an invitation to , Taqddum,coalition, which is a coalition group of independents, civil organizations and political parties.
However, the news reported that Egypt amended the invitation so that the dialogue would be limited to political parties, and the amendment by inviting political parties makes the invitation conditional on attendance. The African Union AU had also extended an invitation to all political forces for dialogue in Addis Ababa on July 15, and the African Union AU did not elaborate on the invitation, but it is understood that those who will attend the political dialogue are all the political powers that the African Union AU representatives had met with in Cairo, Port Sudan and Addis Ababa.
Taqddum welcomed Egypt’s invitation, and regarding the African Union’s invitation, the official spokesman for “Taqddum ” Bakri Al-Jak said that they would not attend the dialogue called for by the African Union AU if the Congress Party participated in it National.. The question is, will the African Union AU submit to the conditions of “Taqddum ” or will it continue to call for dialogue even if “Taqddum ” does not attend and other powers do? On the other hand: The news from “Sudan News Network” stated that the Chairperson of the Sovereignty Council TSC, Lt.Gen.Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, had summoned a group of politicians, including “chieftain Turk, Chairperson of the Supreme Council of Beja chieftains , Jaafar Al-Mirghani, Chairperson of the Original Federal Party, Mubarak Al-Fadil, Chairman of the Umma Party, Al-Tijani Al-Sisi, Chairperson of the Liberation and Justice Party, Jibril Ibrahim, Chairperson of the Justice and Equality Movement, and Minni Arko Minawi, Chairman of the Sudan Liberation Movement. The source indicated that the aim of the meeting was to know the vision of the political powers on how to manage the State under a new government that enjoys the support of the political powers combined.
The SAF commander s represented by Lt.Gen. Yassir Al-Atta and Lt. Gen.Ibrahim Jaber, had spoken a lot in a number of military garrison forums about a government of technocrats running the state and preparing for the general elections.
So the question is, do the army leaders want to pave the way for announcing a government of technocrats that becomes responsible for dialogues between the political powers and preparing for the general elections after the war stops and the security environment and social stability are prepared in the country, as some of its leaders mentioned? If the invitation was directed to the aforementioned political parties. Why did the leadership neglect the most important popular sector that emerged after the war, the “Popular Resistance”, which is the group that supported the SAF and still stands with the officers and soldiers in one line, shoulder to shoulder, in the face of the militia and mercenaries? These represent a new social group of the nation’s youth, who may have new visions that will lead the country out of the state of failure, political failures, and ongoing conflicts that threaten the unity of the country and social security.
The “Popular Resistance” is not a new political party, nor a unified political affiliation, but rather groups dominated by the youth category that sensed political, social, and security responsibility, and carried arms in defense of the unity of the country and the citizens’ property, wealth, and honor.
This sense of responsibility in which the individual offers his precious soul in sacrifice for the homeland and society will not be subject to serving a specific party or foreign agenda.
The participation of this group in all political dialogues is a necessary matter, because it represents a new trend in the country far from the legacies of political failure left behind by all political forces.
Relying only on representatives of the old political trends, experience has proven that these do not have the readiness to change.
Comprehensive, or thinking outside the box, because they are all saturated with the burdens of the culture of political failure inherited after independence, that war represents the highest degree of conflict, which requires new mentalities far from the remnants of the past, mentalities that are prepared to present bold opinions and have broad minds that accept dialogue with other trends, and mentalities capable of producing ideas instead of the many slogans that have filled the sky of the homeland without having a single effect.
It is known that the abundance of slogans is an indication of intellectual emptiness and mental stagnation.
If the war that displaced hundreds of thousands of citizens in different regions and in neighboring countries, and stopped life in the country with showers of bullets and the sound of cannons and shells, all of that did not change their way of thinking.
Rather, you find there are those who are still trying to impose conditions for dialogue, and believe that their only voice heard abroad, which they are betting on, will become a lever for them to gain power. The strange thing is that they do not know that the outside is looking for its interests and changing its convictions according to these interests..
That these people need to wake up from this steadfastness in thinking, and the inflation of the self that is not supported by the shrewdness of political intelligence and social rules, and that the upcoming elections, if they are held, will expose them to themselves, to society and to the world..
These people have more interests in continuing the war, as long as there are those who spend on their stay in luxurious buildings, and provide them with the expenses of movement between the capitals of the world, but that quickly stops when the convictions of the supporter change, and changing convictions depends on the unity of the popular resistance and its standing with the SAF as one line, and that it has a vision for building Sudan and its stability and security..
That Egypt’s change in its invitation to attend the Sudanese dialogue only for political parties is a good step, and indeed Sudanese society wants to know the visions of the Sudanese parties on how to stop the war and the process of building Sudan, and the return of the Sudanese from asylum to their homes and reaching the general elections, that the political parties alone since the December 2018 revolution have not had any political projects presented to the people, only confining all the controversy And the struggle for power.
But will Egypt or even the African Union succeed in establishing dialogue despite those who set conditions for it? And if Egypt or the African Union submit to these conditions, they will be unworthy of sponsoring the dialogue.. And we ask God for a good end..