Berlin… Recycling Failure

As I See

Adil El-Baz

1
The Berlin conference was nothing more than another link in a chain of conferences that reproduce the Sudanese crisis rather than resolve it; the location changes, but the script remains the same.
Amid heavy noise and prolonged debate, the Berlin conference convened and ended with the same outcomes as the conferences in London, Paris, Geneva, and others—as if we are watching a repeated scene with the same script and roles.
The final statement included three issues that I believe are worth pausing over—not because they are new, but to examine the mechanisms for implementing them on the ground.

2
In paragraph eight, the statement reads:
“International donors today announced approximately €1.5 billion, including more than €811 million from the European Union and its member states, to respond to humanitarian needs in Sudan and neighboring countries that continue to host large numbers of refugees fleeing the conflict.”

What guarantees and mechanisms will the European Union and its member states use to ensure these funds reach those entitled to them? The reason for this question is that the three previous conferences (London, Paris, and Geneva) pledged a total of $4.1 billion on paper, of which only 22% was actually delivered. This percentage alone is enough to undermine any new talk of commitments.
If these countries have failed over three years to meet their pledges toward the worst humanitarian crisis, what makes us believe they will honor their commitments this time?!

3
The second issue concerns the political track, as stated in paragraph four:
“It provided a dedicated platform to amplify their collective call for de-escalation and progress toward a political resolution of the conflict.”

A collective call by whom? By the groups of Sumoud, Ardol, and Al-Jakoumi?! The most prominent participants in this farce.
Do these individuals—with all due respect to Al-Jakoumi and Ardol—represent the collective voice of Sudanese people?! Who elected them? On what basis did they come to speak on behalf of Sudan and represent it in international conferences, while the government—recognized by the entire world as legitimate—is being sidelined?!

It is a striking paradox that people speak in the name of Sudanese citizens while ignoring the authority recognized globally as the existing government. What puzzles me is that, according to the statement, they were invited “to discuss launching a Sudanese–Sudanese political dialogue that could pave the way for a civilian transition in Sudan once a permanent ceasefire is reached.”
Who is launching this dialogue? Is it the Quintet? If so, why claim that the dialogue is purely Sudanese if the Quintet sets the agenda, selects participants, and funds it?

What is happening here appears less like political representation and more like a redistribution of Sudanese voices according to external preferences.

Dr. Al-Shafi‘ Khidr wrote in his article “On the Eve of the Berlin Conference on Sudan” in Al-Quds Al-Arabi:
“Personally, I expect nothing from this seminar, nor do I believe the organizers expect anything. It is as if they insisted on having civil forces on the sidelines of the conference merely as decorative presence or ‘passengers along for the ride.’ Nevertheless, I hope attendees will use the opportunity of being together in one hall to calmly explore ways to de-escalate—not on the battlefield, but in the political arena among civil and political forces.”
He is right in this.

The appropriation of Sudanese voices and the attempt to select a group favored by the West to represent them is a form of international political deception that will not pass. The Quintet will discover—perhaps it already has—that those it invited as representatives of the Sudanese people, at best, represent only themselves.
This happens while the government recognized worldwide as legitimate is being excluded. Therefore, the outcomes of this conference will neither bind the Sudanese people nor their government, and nothing will come of it. It will dissipate like previous conferences—or at best, remain noise without impact.

4
The third issue worth examining is what the statement says:
“This process is essential to ensuring an inclusive, civilian, and democratic future for Sudan. This civil engagement aims to complement ongoing international mediation efforts, including the Quartet’s work on a ceasefire and the Quintet’s consultations in support of a future Sudanese–Sudanese political dialogue.”

This implies that the Quartet’s proposals—rejected by the Sudanese government—were inserted into the final statement in a roundabout way. The government has its own plan and agenda for a ceasefire, so why does the conference accept the Quartet’s plan and reject the government’s, yet still claim the process is purely Sudanese?
In other words, decisions are being cooked up abroad and then presented domestically as if they were the will of the Sudanese people.

5
I am pleased to conclude this article with a passage from my friend Dr. Al-Wathiq Kameir’s article (“The Berlin Conference: A Storm in a Teacup or Much Ado About Nothing?”):
“Reservations about the conference are not limited to narrow alignment but also relate to the nature of the conference itself, its methodology, and the question of representation within it. One of the most complex points of contention concerns not only attendance or boycott, but who participates, in what capacity, with what level of representation, who is excluded, and who has the legitimacy to claim representation of this or that sector.
Moreover, forces opposed to the Rapid Support Forces often refuse to sit with those they consider close to the government or Islamists, while those parties in turn refuse to sit with those they see as part of the opposing camp or its political cover. In light of this sharp division, merely bringing these parties together in one place becomes a limited achievement, not a natural prelude to political consensus.”

If only the Quintet had invited five wise Sudanese figures to guide it onto a sound path—saving it from this ongoing failure, confusion, and blind bias toward its protégés.