Addis Conference: Details of the Positions of Political Components Participating in the Dialogue

Sudan Events – Agencies

A matrix prepared by the High-Level Committee on Sudan, in collaboration with IGAD mediators and African Union committees, has revealed the positions of Sudanese groups that participated in the previous two rounds of preparations for the political process (Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue).

The African committee held two rounds of discussions separately for the groups. The first round, in July 2024, included the “Democratic Bloc” and other groups supporting the army, while the second round, in August 2024, involved the “Taqadum” Coordination before its split, along with armed movements such as the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North and the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Nour.

Refusal to Sit Together

Sources close to the third round of talks, organized by the High-Level Committee and IGAD at the African Union headquarters last week over four days, reported that the participating parties did not meet bilaterally or collectively.

They confirmed that the participating parties—including the Civil Democratic Alliance of Revolutionary Forces (“Sumud”), the Democratic Bloc, and the Sudan Founding Alliance (“Tasis”), which includes the Rapid Support Forces, armed movements, and political parties—refused to sit together, with each group convening in a separate hall.

The sources noted that the High-Level Committee decided to suspend the meetings after the “Sumud” and “Tasis” groups refused to discuss the proposed agenda. “Sumud” requested an opportunity to discuss the agenda and points of contention with the other parties.

Meanwhile, it was agreed that the meetings would resume at the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa in early April, immediately after the Eid holiday.

Ceasefire

Points of convergence and divergence emerged regarding the ceasefire issue. Both groups agreed on its necessity, but they differed on sequencing—whether priority should be given to security or governance.

The Democratic Bloc emphasized linking the ceasefire to the establishment of transitional government structures, also highlighting humanitarian needs in general.

On the other hand, “Taqadum” argued that the path to a political solution must prioritize an immediate comprehensive ceasefire as the primary goal.

Transitional Period

Regarding transitional governance structures, significant differences surfaced, which mediators described as reflections of differing strategic priorities.

The mediation noted that the August group believes security stability is the foundation upon which governance should be built, while the July group sees the establishment of governance frameworks as essential for creating a stable environment that enables security sector reforms and other changes.

According to the matrix obtained by Sudan Tribune, the Democratic Bloc prioritizes the early establishment of governance structures and a constitutional framework, considering these steps fundamental for broader reforms.

Conversely, the “Taqadum” Coordination and other groups argue that transitional governance should be addressed in a second phase after security stabilizes. They propose that transitional governance structures should follow the ceasefire.

Summary of Agreements and Disagreements

The matrix concluded that both groups are committed to many fundamental principles, which could serve as a basis for a unified dialogue process.

However, it emphasized the need to address significant differences between their approaches to ensure a cohesive and effective peace process.

The committee confirmed that both groups agree that the peace process should be Sudanese-led and inclusive of a wide range of stakeholders, including political parties, civil society, armed groups, women, youth, and marginalized communities. However, they differ in their criteria for inclusivity.

The July group (Democratic Bloc and others) advocates for broader inclusivity, excluding only those convicted of serious crimes such as war crimes.

In contrast, the August group (“Taqadum” and others) insists on the complete exclusion of members of the former National Congress Party to prevent spoilers from undermining the process.

The matrix also indicated consensus on the need for reforms, but the core disagreement revolves around the timeline and implementation priorities.

Venue and Timing of Dialogue

The Democratic Bloc insisted on holding the dialogue within Sudan, provided that a ceasefire is reached to ensure local ownership.

Conversely, the “Taqadum” group recommended starting the dialogue in a neutral venue, such as Addis Ababa, with immediate international facilitation.

The committee noted that there is a strategic difference regarding location and timing: the August group prioritizes neutrality and international support, while the July group emphasizes local ownership and a context-based dialogue schedule.

Involvement of Civil Society

The Democratic Bloc emphasized the need to integrate civil society and marginalized groups, including women, youth, displaced persons, and grassroots representatives, ensuring diverse stakeholder representation.

For its part, the August group called for the inclusion of women, youth, civil society, and other marginalized groups at all stages of the dialogue and peace process.

An analysis by mediators showed that both groups acknowledge the necessity of economic recovery. However, the August group explicitly links economic issues to peace, while the July group takes a broader approach.

Humanitarian Aid

The mediators’ analysis confirmed that both groups agree on the need for humanitarian aid. However, they differ in their integration approach: the August group ties it to immediate security needs, whereas the July group links it to governance and broader dialogue.

The matrix indicated that the Democratic Bloc acknowledges the need for humanitarian access but views it as part of broader governance discussions and conflict resolution strategies.

In contrast, the “Taqadum” group called for the immediate coordination of humanitarian aid through safe corridors and zones, directly linking relief efforts to ceasefire compliance.

Sudanese Dialogue

Regarding issues related to the preparatory phase of the Sudanese dialogue, the High-Level Committee stated that both parties recognize the need for strong facilitation but differ in infrastructure preferences— the August group favors a centralized platform, while the July group promotes a more decentralized and grassroots-driven approach.

According to the matrix, the Democratic Bloc insists that the dialogue mechanism should be consensus-based and led by national forces. It favors a decentralized decision-making approach that empowers local actors.

The “Taqadum” group, however, proposed a unified platform that integrates regional and international efforts, advocating for an organized and coherent approach to negotiations and implementation.

Final Summary of Agreements and Disagreements

According to the High-Level Committee on Sudan and IGAD, the two groups are committed to many fundamental principles, which could serve as a foundation for a unified dialogue process.

However, it stressed the need to address major differences in their approaches to achieve a cohesive and effective peace process.

The report highlighted that both groups agreed that the peace process should be Sudanese-led and inclusive of a broad range of stakeholders, such as political parties, civil society, armed groups, women, youth, and marginalized communities. However, they differ slightly in their inclusivity criteria.

The July group (Democratic Bloc and others) proposed broader inclusion criteria, only excluding those convicted of serious crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, or human rights violations.

It argued that this approach allows more stakeholders to participate while maintaining a minimum level of accountability.

Meanwhile, the August group (“Taqadum” and others) completely excludes former members of the National Congress Party, aiming to prevent spoilers from undermining the process.

The two groups agree on a phased dialogue approach. The first phase should focus on immediate issues, such as ceasefire agreements, humanitarian aid access, and establishing transitional governance structures.

The second phase would then address long-term structural issues, including governance systems, national identity, justice, and security sector reform.

The High-Level Committee confirmed that both groups recognize the role of international and regional actors. It noted that there is a consensus on the need for organizations such as the African Union and IGAD to provide technical, financial, and logistical support without undermining Sudanese ownership of the process.

According to the matrix summary, both sides also committed to justice and reconciliation, emphasizing the importance of strong accountability mechanisms to address grievances, ensure accountability for past violations, and promote national reconciliation. This is seen as crucial for building trust and preventing future cycles of violence.

(Source: Sudan Tribune)