Regarding the Statement of the Communist Party titled “Decisive Popular Action to Stop International Intervention in Dividing the Country and Looting Its Resources” dated September 7, 2024

Mohamed Galal Ahmed Hashim Kampala – September 9, 2024

The Sudanese Communist Party issued its statement mentioned above, which is available on the party’s Facebook page at the following link:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17n8VPXVNN/?mibextid=oFDknk

Unfortunately, this statement issued by the Central Committee of the party reflects the true crisis the Sudanese Communist Party is going through—both a crisis of vision and a crisis of position regarding the proxy war against the people of Sudan and their state. Firstly, the statement speaks about conspiracies to dismantle the Sudanese state while simultaneously falling into the trap of the conspirators by portraying the war as between the army and the Janjaweed militias. This portrayal is the intellectual and moral foundation of the plan to dismantle the Sudanese state, as it discusses the events as if the state no longer exists. Secondly, while the party calls for stopping the war, it does not clarify how to stop it: does stopping the war mean legitimizing the Janjaweed militias, or does it mean dismantling these criminal militias?
The statement mentions: “… and security arrangements to dissolve the Rapid Support Forces and the National Congress militias, and the armies of the movements under the supervision of a civilian government…” But earlier, it also said: “… and the military and the Rapid Support Forces withdrawing from politics and the economy…”, which implicitly legitimizes the Janjaweed militias. By calling for the withdrawal of the Janjaweed from the economy and politics, it essentially keeps their military status intact. Is this what the Sudanese people are asking for as a solution to the war? Furthermore, speaking of subjecting the Janjaweed militias to security arrangements inherently means legitimizing them.
The Communist Party participated in all negotiations that led to the formation of the transitional period, starting with the Forces of Freedom and Change, passing through negotiations with the military and the Janjaweed, and then contributing to the drafting of the constitutional document, which legitimized the harmful partnership between the Forces of Freedom and Change, the military (the same army now accused of being the army of the Islamists), and the Janjaweed militias (the same ones wreaking havoc in the country). As we can see, the Communist Party’s stance is fully aligned with the Forces of Freedom and Change, as if it’s just “angry” at them or “boycotting” them.
Now, the Communist Party is talking about imperialist conspiracies to dismantle and divide Sudan while using the same terminology coined by the imperialist forces for the purpose of Sudan’s dismantling. Any insightful person can see that imperialist forces meticulously craft this terminology to build a coherent dismantling narrative that can be accepted nationally, regionally, and internationally as part of the project to dismantle Sudan.
When the Communist Party refers to the so-called “Burhan government” and mentions “regional and international powers arming both sides of the conflict,” it clearly equates the state apparatus with the Janjaweed militias. And by doing so, the statement absolves the UAE of its responsibility for arming the Janjaweed militias, reducing their actions to the general description of “supporters of both sides.” Does this imply that, according to the Communist Party, no accusations should be directed toward the UAE, which is arming the Janjaweed militias that terrorize civilians with these weapons?
If the Communist Party truly views this war as a conspiracy to dismantle Sudan, it should recognize it as a war waged by external forces targeting the Sudanese state through the very militias the state itself created. Here, we see imperialist countries standing against the Sudanese state, regardless of who runs it. The stance towards the homeland must be the same as the stance towards the people and the state, regardless of the form of governance. If a state exists…
Thus, the logic of discussing the targeting of the Sudanese state by imperialist forces, militarily and politically, through various means (such as the Janjaweed militias and the UAE, or through the political actors like the Forces of Freedom and Change and civil society organizations) places us before two sides in this war: the Sudanese state and people on one side, and imperialist forces and their local and regional proxies on the other. These are the two real sides of this war, especially since the imperialist forces are planning to dismantle the Sudanese state and its people.
In times of such crises, the logical and patriotic stance should be to unify the internal front in all its diversity, to join forces with the army and for the army to join forces with the people, rather than distancing oneself from the war while blaming both sides equally—reducing the conflict to the “army” versus the “Janjaweed militias.”
Unfortunately, the Communist Party’s statement reflects a misunderstanding of what is truly happening on the ground. To claim that “both sides of the war are implicated in war crimes and crimes against humanity” is misleading. If we assume that the army and the Janjaweed militias are indeed the two sides of this war, have they committed these crimes equally? Why then are people fleeing from areas controlled by the Janjaweed to areas controlled by the army? Why is the trend of civilian displacement directed towards army-controlled areas if both sides are equally guilty of crimes against humanity?
Here, we must ask the Communist Party of Sudan: In which areas controlled by either side of the war does the state order still exist? And where have the majority of Communist Party members fled to—like millions of other Sudanese? Have they fled to army-controlled areas, or to areas controlled by the Janjaweed militias?
With all due respect, the Communist Party’s statement does not reflect a mere deficiency in vision; it reveals a complete absence of intellectual or political insight. The statement doesn’t even rise to the level of a journalistic report, let alone a formal statement from the Communist Party of Sudan.