To Avoid Misjudging “Taqaddum”

Shereef Mohamed Othman, a leader in the “Taqaddum” movement, has complained about the distortion of their stance in this war and the portrayal of their positions as being biased toward the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This complaint, repeated since the war began, is often voiced by Taqaddum’s leadership. They are justified in rejecting such misrepresentation and in demanding that judgments about their positions be based on facts rather than allegations fabricated by their opponents. They also call for accuracy and fairness in presenting these facts, not random or prejudiced reporting.

In adherence to this rightful demand, several key facts can be observed:

1. The Spark of War:

Taqaddum agrees with the RSF in absolving them of responsibility for starting the war. They also reject the notion that the RSF staged a coup or rebelled. They dismiss the siege of Merowe Airport as a cause for the war and reject the army’s narrative about the first shots fired in Khartoum, instead adopting the RSF’s version of events.

2. The Purpose of War:

Taqaddum and the RSF concur in the opening statement of the Addis Ababa Declaration that the RSF has no motives to ignite the war. They agree that the war is “the last in a series of failed attempts to derail the course of the December Revolution.”

3. Commitment to Democracy:

Both Taqaddum and the RSF assert that the RSF is committed to democracy, while the army’s commitment to democracy is either absent or questionable.

4. Supporters and Allies:

Taqaddum leaders and the RSF denounce any support for the army, criticize calls for mobilization in its favor, and condemn its supporters as part of the “camp of war.” Conversely, they avoid using harsh words against the RSF or its supporters, whether domestic or foreign.

They both oppose citizens’ resistance to RSF incursions into neighborhoods, villages, and homes.

5. The Jeddah Declaration:

Taqaddum supports the RSF’s stance on the Jeddah Declaration and justifies its non-compliance with its terms.

In the Addis Ababa Declaration, they refrained from mentioning or directly referencing the RSF.

Taqaddum accuses the government and army of obstinacy regarding housing issues while absolving the RSF of any blame for the impasse.

Some of their leaders even justified the RSF’s occupation of homes, setting conditions for evacuation that the RSF itself had not stipulated.

6. Peace Stance:

Taqaddum agrees with the RSF on its commitment to peace and its earnest pursuit of it, while portraying the army as inflexible.

Both share the same negotiation conditions, rejecting the government’s terms, and insisting that negotiations guarantee a primary role for the RSF in shaping the political process. Additionally, they agree that any deal should impose varying penalties on the army’s supporters based on the extent of their involvement.

7. Crimes and Accountability:

Taqaddum calls for excluding the above issues and other detailed topics when assessing its impartiality. They argue that judgments should rely solely on their denunciation of crimes, maintaining that both sides commit violations, which they condemn equally.

However, Taqaddum equates airstrikes as the primary counter to RSF crimes and demands a global ban on military aviation without any call to ban RSF operations or its use of aircraft for arms transport.

In Taqaddum’s rhetoric, “terrorism” is rarely used against the RSF but occasionally appears when discussing the army. Both agree on rejecting the classification of the RSF as a terrorist group.

Taqaddum leaders urge citizens to overlook grievances caused by RSF crimes and actively participate in its media campaigns that redirect public outrage towards the army and its supporters.

8. The RSF’s Perspective:

The RSF expresses satisfaction with Taqaddum, treating it as an ally and insisting on its leadership in the political process.

*Thus, the undeniable facts do not favor Taqaddum. Documenting these facts and understanding their implications undermine Taqaddum’s claim of neutrality. Ignoring such facts amounts to real distortion, not reporting and judging them. They clearly demonstrate Taqaddum’s bias toward the RSF. Attempts to prove impartiality based solely on the condemnation of crimes are flawed, as neither Taqaddum nor any other entity has the luxury of not denouncing RSF crimes. Such denunciations are obligatory. However, Taqaddum weakens its stance through various tactics, undermining its credibility.