Dr. Cameron Hudson, former US President Barack Obama's special envoy to Sudan, former African affairs official at the US National Security Council, said that there is great skepticism about the commitment of the two parties to the conflict in Sudan to the temporary truce, stressing the need to assess the scene every hour to see how serious they are.
He explained – in his interview with the "Beyond the News" program (18/4/2023) – that there is a great fear that the two sides will stop confrontation only for a period that allows the diplomatic teams to leave the country so that they are not in the crossfire, wondering what might happen next in The absence of observers left civilians alone in the cycle of violence.
This comes against the background of the entry into force of a humanitarian truce in Sudan on Tuesday evening, after the army and Rapid Support announced its approval for a period of 24 hours, at a time when the Al-Jazeera correspondent monitored the flight of warplanes in the sky of Khartoum and the response of ground-based anti-aircraft weapons to it, shortly after the start of the truce.
The truce was reached after the US Secretary of State contacted the army commander, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the commander of the Rapid Support Forces, Muhammad Hamdan Daglo (Hemedti), and asked them for a humanitarian truce.
Speaking behind the news, Hudson indicated that Washington's message is based on holding the two parties responsible for the events that are taking place, regardless of who initiated them, pointing out that there are reports indicating that the support forces are "working in an undisciplined manner", and may target diplomatic teams, and from That shooting towards an American vehicle belonging to the embassy yesterday.
He also stressed the need not to give credibility and legitimacy to the two parties so that they can be held accountable for what they have done, and that they receive a clear message that neither of them can play a future role in Sudan, as they – according to his estimation – are not interested in the lives of civilians or the infrastructure in the country.
He expressed his fear that the diplomats' departure from Khartoum would weaken any message of restraint sent from international capitals, as civilians would be left alone in a city at war between two warring factions, stressing the need for a clear message to reach both parties regarding their responsibility for the consequences of their actions, as accountability may not come tomorrow, but A trial is inevitable, he said.
He also accused the two sides of the conflict of not being serious about handing over power to civilians, even if they declared otherwise, and said that the goal of each was to buy time for their personal interests, "each of them chose the course of war to impose what it sees as a fait accompli."
Conflicting statements
In turn, Al-Rashid Al-Mu'tasim, a researcher at the Khartoum Center for Dialogue and Strategic Studies, said that the bases affiliated with the Rapid Support Forces and deployed in civilian neighborhoods are no longer linked to their leaders, considering them to be groups looking for supplies and personal survival.
Speaking behind the news, he indicated that the army agreed to the truce on a humanitarian basis due to the spread of dead bodies in some areas, and vital areas – including health facilities – were attacked by the Rapid Support Forces.
He said that the excesses of the Rapid Support Forces are known to citizens before the army, and they photograph them and publish them on social media, pointing to the presence of large mobilization operations by the support forces from the western side, and from the Darfur side, as they move towards the capital.
Al-Mu'tasim believes that the Rapid Support Forces are seeking to find a position in the media and through communication with the outside that allows them to stabilize, but the army, in its custom, considers what is happening as a battle for the existence of the central state. The support forces are not a political entity but rather a rebel military faction, and the army will not accept that under any perception.
On the other hand, the Sudanese political analyst and researcher in international relations, Hafez Kabir, believes that talk of a separation between members of the Rapid Support Forces and its leadership is something that is denied by objective facts in reality, and that its leadership has a strong connection with the international community, which was evident in recent interactions.
He said that the Rapid Support seeks as much as possible to abide by the armistice, and in fact, the violation of the armistice began with the army's flight, which indicates – according to its estimation – an intention not to comply, or a separation of the forces from what the leadership wants.
And he considered holding the support forces responsible for civilian casualties due to the presence of their forces in civilian neighborhoods, not appropriate, because this presence was established by the army by establishing military installations inside cities and between residential neighborhoods, so it is not logical to blame the support forces after that.
And he believes that there is a phobia among groups supporting the military component of foreign mediation and hostility to any international role, saying that this is inherited from the previous regime and its agenda and its elements that still exist, according to his estimation, adding, "The army wants to monopolize the security and military establishment and fully control their reform process." .
