Reliable sources at the US State Department confirmed to Asharq Al -Awsat, the cancellation of the meeting of the Quartet Committee on Sudan, which was to be hosted by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, on Wednesday, July 30, without specifying the reasons or a new date for the meeting, which raised questions about the reasons for cancellation, and frustration among the Sudanese who were hoping to take serious steps in The end of the war that left tens of thousands of dead, millions of displaced and refugees.
The “State Department” sources did not announce the reasons that prompted them to cancel the meeting, despite the intensive preparations that took place during the past weeks and the level of regional coordination that took place, and prepared the joint statement that was previously prepared. For his part, the Egyptian ambassador to Washington, Moataz Zahran, indicated that the conference may be postponed to September next, assuring Al -Sharq Al -Awsat’s interest in “Quartet” in following up international pressure to reach a settlement of the crisis in Sudan.
Conference objectives
The US State Department had set specific goals of this meeting, by launching a comprehensive political dialogue between the two parties to the conflict, stopping external interference, emphasizing the unity and sovereignty of Sudan, and going out with a joint statement calling for the end of hostilities and the launch of political initiatives to enhance the access of humanitarian aid.
There were doubts about the feasibility of the meeting and its ability to take decisive steps to achieve the ceasefire and the protection of civilians, which have spread expanded among Sudanese activists, especially in light of the exclusion of the parties to the conflict from the Sudanese army and the “Rapid Support Forces”.
The difference of visions
Areej Al -Hajj talked at the “Washington Institute for Near East Policies”, which specializes in Sudanese affairs, about the differences in visions between the participants in this meeting. She said in statements to Asharq Al -Awsat that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wanted to expand the regional and international participants, by adding Qatar, the United Kingdom, countries of the European Union and the African Union; To intensify international pressure to find solutions to the situation in Sudan, while the vision of Massad Paul, the presidential advisor who consults between the two parties to the conflict, was that the meeting only is limited to the Quartet, which includes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the United States and Egypt.
Areej Al -Hajj pointed out that the failure of the Sudanese army or representatives of “rapid support” was not the reason behind the cancellation of the meeting, but rather the reason for the complexity of the interlocking Sudanese scene, and the difficult equation between achieving regional balances and taking into account the interest of Sudan at home, in light of the directions of the declaration of a parallel government. She expressed concern about the possibility of US momentum and that Washington will continue to observe regional interests and come up with results that are not inclined in the interest of a state or a political faction.
She said that it is in the interest of the United States to deal with the Sudanese file from a pragmatic standpoint related to regional balances related to combating terrorism and combating Chinese and Russian expansion.
Sudanese shock
The postponement decision sparked a wide shock among the Sudanese who commented their hopes of meeting; To achieve a political breakthrough that ends the bloody war, puts an end to human rights violations, and reduces the worsening humanitarian crisis.
The civil political forces and a large number of citizens have expressed their prior welcome to hold the meeting, as it represents a last opportunity to pressure both parties to the conflict for a permanent ceasefire, and enter into a comprehensive political process that brings the country back to the path of democratic transition.
The United Nations has classified the Sudanese crisis as the largest humanitarian catastrophe in the world currently witnessing, as millions suffer from hunger, displacement and the collapse of basic services, amid an escalation of violations in conflict areas, and the almost complete absence of the state and its institutions.
Political analysts expected that the delay was an expression of a decline or a hesitation in the international will of the decisive dealing with the Sudanese crisis, in light of the western parties’ preoccupation with other crises such as wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
It is widely feared that the postponement of the meeting – without specifying a clear alternative date – will be released with negative messages of civil forces and Sudanese society, whose hopes were put in that meeting, and the two sides of the war are given more time to expand the violence, without a real international deterrent.
Optimism and pessimism
The meeting had previously sparked different Sudanese reactions between a supporter, optimistic, reprehensible and pessimistic. The Sudanese Conference opposed to the quadruple meeting welcomed the level of foreign ministers, and renewed in a statement its confirmation that the war must be stopped as a national responsibility that requires a unified political will of all Sudanese.
Jaafar Hassan, a spokesman for the “Samoud Alliance” movement, led by former Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdouk, and includes more than 100 political, professional and family entities, expressed his great optimism about this meeting, indicating that he brings together regional countries affecting the Sudanese scene, unlike previous meetings in which the leaders of the warring parties participated.
Good discussion of a political practical plan that leads to a sustainable peace, and at the same time expressed his concern that the meeting would result in partial solutions or a settlement that leads to the sharing of power instead of the comprehensive and origin democratic transformation.
On the other hand, the Sudanese “Democratic Renewal” party issued a statement expressing its refusal to hold the meeting without a partnership of the active Sudanese players. The party promised that step a fatal strategic mistake and a grave political mistake that cannot be justified or accepted. The party said, in a statement, that ignoring the invitation of any independent Sudanese civilian party, especially the national forces defending human rights, is a deviation from the basic principles of any credible political process, and devotes an exclusionary approach that deepens the crisis rather than solving it.
The party declared its refusal to discuss the fate of the Sudanese people in closed rooms without the presence of representatives from Sudan, and this promised to transgress the will of the Sudanese, and to reproduce rejected international guardianship that does not make peace and does not build a state. He stressed that despite the importance of the regional and international role, this initiative is fate of failure, regardless of the intentions of the international parties.
0 Comments