Violence flared up in Sudan as warring parties, i.e., the army, commanded by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Force (RSF) led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalom, better known as Hemedti, engaged in a bloody stand-off which, according to the Central Committee Of Sudan Doctors (CCSD), led to the death or injury of hundreds of people.
Amid the violence, there is talk about faltering mediation efforts, a potential de-escalation, and alleviation of the crisis to find a settlement eventually.
Significance of Mediation
Mediation is considered one of the most effective mechanisms for peaceful resolution of conflicts and disputes in case the parties cannot or are not willing to sit together at a negotiating table. This is especially so in the pre-conflict stage and its dynamics. The goal of mediation is conflict prevention, thereby preventing it from occurring in the first place. It is also used during a crisis where conflict intervention is aimed at conflict mitigation. This approach is pursued to restrain conflicts through implementing a set of emergency and non-emergency strategies and activities to address the causes of the conflict and change the way those involved work. It should be noted that restraining or calming conflicts does not mean resolving them but rather reducing their impact and severity.
This can be achieved through good offices pursued by prominent figures such as international envoys in conflict zones or international entities involved in maintaining international peace and security. In the case of Sudan, the Troika, consisting of the United Nations, the African Union, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), is involved in these efforts. At a later stage, and when good offices achieve progress on the ground, however slight it might be, mediation is then pursued to build on that, and shuttle diplomacy is used. This diplomacy relies on the experience and influence of mediators who work with parties to the conflict to explain the situation and help them to reach an acceptable settlement.
Other Mechanisms
Mediation and good offices are essential components of a comprehensive approach to achieving peaceful settlements. Along with facilitation and dialogue, they play an integral role in encouraging involved parties to open communication channels and ultimately engage in negotiations to clarify their positions, interests, needs, and objectives. By working collaboratively, these mechanisms contribute to the progress towards peaceful resolutions, paving the way for a more stable and just world.
Even with the best intentions, mediation efforts may encounter challenges that impede their success. These challenges can stem from the intricacy of the mediation process, the mediator's competence and personal attributes, and the extent to which involved parties are content with the mediation process and its outcomes. Furthermore, contextual factors such as the level of escalation in the conflict and the cooperation exhibited by actors who have a bearing on the conflict's trajectory can play a decisive role in determining the mediation's success or failure. A nuanced understanding of these factors is critical to enhancing the efficacy of mediation efforts and realizing their potential to foster peaceful resolutions of disputes.
Potential Mediators
Given the fast-paced developments in Sudan, mediation is still likely to be played by either one of the following:
1- Tripartite Mechanism:
Since its establishment, the primary mandate of the troika - comprising the United Nations, the African Union, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) - has been to facilitate dialogue between Sudanese parties, with a particular focus on addressing the dynamic between civilian and military components and establishing sustainable and effective communication channels to resolve disputes. Over the past year, the troika has diligently monitored developments in the region and provided valuable insights to aid Sudan in overcoming prevailing challenges. Owing to its unique composition, the Troika is well-positioned to play an active role in this context and has the potential to shift from a reactive mode to an initiative-driven approach, encouraging parties to adopt the measures it advocates.
2- The Quartet and Troika Members:
The main mission of the Quartet, which includes the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, was to provide the necessary support and assistance to bring Sudan back to safety. This is what was adopted by the United States, Britain, and Norway, known as the "Troika", known for taking common positions on many relevant international issues. This opens the way for the United States and Britain, in particular, as members of both the Quartet and the Troika at the same time, to play a more effective role in the ongoing conflict in Sudan and to not settle for condemnation statements denouncing what is happening on the ground. Moreover, Saudi Arabia and the UAE played a positive role based on their significant weight. The two countries have called on the parties to the conflict in Sudan to calm down, exercise restraint and wisdom, reduce escalation, and work to end the current crisis through dialogue.
3- Egypt:
Cairo has maintained a neutral stance since the overthrow of former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in 2019, the subsequent protests across the country, and the measures taken by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in 2021, which he termed a "course correction." This neutrality can be attributed to the strong relationship between Egypt and Sudan, as well as Egypt's unwavering support for the unity and cohesion of the Sudanese people. Additionally, Egypt has clarified that its allegiance lies with the Sudanese people rather than any particular party to the conflict, positioning it as a potential mediator in the ongoing conflict. Given its impartiality and established diplomatic ties with Sudan, Egypt is well-positioned to play a constructive role in facilitating a peaceful settlement or at the very least, de-escalating the situation and establishing a sense of calm between warring factions.
4- Cairo and Juba:
One of the available alternatives is a mediation role jointly played by Egypt and South Sudan to halt the ongoing violence in Sudan. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi received a phone call from South Sudan President Salva Kiir on April 16, 2023, during which the two presidents appealed for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan, and called on all parties to calm down and “prioritize the voice of wisdom” and peaceful dialogue. The two presidents also expressed the readiness of Egypt and South Sudan to mediate between the Sudanese warring parties.
Given the past performance of Cairo and Juba, warring parties in Sudan might well accept mediation by Egypt and South Sudan. A newly independent state that broke away from Sudan only 12 years ago, South Sudan sponsored the Juba Agreement for Peace in Sudan signed by Sudanese parties in 2020 to establish political transition in post-al-Bashir Sudan. That is why Juba and Cairo are fully prepared to mediate now in Sudan provided that they possess the tools required for calming the escalating situation and full understanding all aspects of the conflict sensitivity, including statements and measures by both states as well as the options offered to the warring parties as an alternative to violence.
Favorable Opportunity
The process of mediation requires the involvement of credible individuals or entities that are acceptable to all parties involved in the conflict. It also demands an enabling environment that is conducive to the success of the mediation efforts, along with genuine and effective coordination with all actors inside Sudan, as well as in the wider region and beyond.
The timely resolution of the Sudanese conflict remains critical. The involved parties must prioritize rationality over the use of force and refrain from actions that may escalate the conflict into a full-blown civil war.
However, the mediation process in Sudan is confronted with several challenges. These include addressing power and wealth-sharing arrangements, defining the relationship between the military and civilian components, and ensuring the provision of relief and humanitarian aid, particularly in light of the growing food crisis. Furthermore, the disarmament, disbanding, and reintegration of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) pose an additional challenge, as the force was recently labeled by General al-Burhan as a "rebel militia." The ultimate goal is to re-establish Sudan's national army as a unified and cohesive force that will be solely responsible for protecting the country from internal and external threats.
