The Separatist Truce: A Political Reading of Sudan’s Future

By Minni Arko Minnawi

Since the outbreak of war in Sudan, talk of “humanitarian truces” has become a recurring political refrain, invoked whenever the humanitarian tragedy reaches its peak. However, the truce proposed today comes in a different and dangerous context, following the Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) perpetration of genocide and ethnic cleansing in El Fasher, one of the most horrific humanitarian disasters in the history of modern Sudan and indeed, humanity as a whole.

El Fasher, once a symbol of diversity and coexistence, has been transformed into a devastated city, devoid of its inhabitants. In the wake of this heinous crime, the international community has once again put forward a “humanitarian truce” as a viable option. This necessitates a careful political analysis that goes beyond mere moral pronouncements and dissects the motives and potential consequences, particularly for Sudan’s geographical, social, and political unity.

The Truce: A Path to Peace or a Gateway to Disintegration?

In popular culture, there’s a saying: “If you see a poor person eating chicken, either the poor person is sick or the chicken is sick.” This proverb encapsulates the essence of legitimate political skepticism surrounding the timing of this truce.

Humanitarian truces, in principle, are tools to alleviate the suffering of civilians and may pave the way for ending conflicts. However, what raises suspicion is that this truce was proposed after the disaster, not before, and after the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) categorically rejected any humanitarian commitment, including protecting hospitals and securing safe passage.

Now, humanitarian organizations are operating in most parts of Sudan, including Darfur, despite the security complexities in the absence of a truce. Therefore, the question becomes legitimate: Why now? And whose interests are served by proposing this truce at this particular time? This contradiction opens the door to suspicion that the objective extends beyond the humanitarian dimension to include reshaping the political and geographical reality of the country.

Truces in Historical Experiences: Lessons That Cannot Be Ignored

Modern history is replete with examples where humanitarian truces transformed from tools for de-escalation into precursors to fragmentation and secession. In Western Sahara (Polisario), Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and South Sudan, truces were not always bridges to peace; rather, they were often transitional phases toward the division of states and the erosion of their sovereignty.

In the Sudanese case specifically, Operation Lifeline Sudan in 1993 stands as a stark example of how humanitarian aid was exploited as a political tool, ultimately culminating in the secession of South Sudan through a referendum, preceded by a long process of normalizing the reality of division.

However, the current situation is far more dangerous and complex. It is not simply a matter of a government negotiating with a political movement with national demands, but rather an unprecedented situation where two parties claim to represent the “government” within a single state: the legitimate Sudanese government on one side, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which seeks to establish a parallel entity, on the other.

The Trap of Disguised Political Recognition

Negotiations between “two governments” within a single state are not only unprecedented in Sudan, but also constitute a dangerous political trap aimed at extracting recognition of the de facto situation through a truce agreement. The mere act of joint signing grants the rebel faction a status of parity and legitimacy, which fundamentally contradicts the immense sacrifices made by the Sudanese people in defense of the unity and sovereignty of their state.

This course of action represents a direct violation of the fundamental principles for which martyrs fell and women were widowed, foremost among them:

First: The principle of the unity of Sudan.

The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have violated this principle by bringing in foreign elements and mercenaries, and by exploiting external support to impose forced demographic changes in an attempt to reshape Sudan according to agendas that have no connection to the national will.

Second: The Principle of Government Unity and Constitutional Legitimacy

The attempt to form a “parallel government” directly undermines the legitimacy of the Sudanese state, strikes at the foundations upon which it has been built since independence, and opens the door to political chaos and institutional division.

Third: The Unity of the Military Establishment

The Rapid Support Forces’ receipt of weapons and combat equipment from foreign countries, and their reliance on looting and self-financing, completely contradicts any talk of security sector reform or building a unified national army, and practically establishes multiple armies within a single state.

The Ambiguity of the Negotiations and the Lack of Transparency

Concern is growing due to the complete lack of transparency surrounding the details of the truce. Why are the negotiations being conducted behind closed doors? Why is the Sudanese people excluded from knowing what is being agreed upon in their name? How can foreign countries negotiate on behalf of a people bleeding under the weight of war and displacement? Who has more right to be involved in the peace process than whom? Are there any priorities more important than managing the ongoing war in which everyone is complicit?

Even more dangerous is the fact that the party “holding the pen” in the political process is the same one “holding the cannon” and carrying out killing and ethnic cleansing—a moral and political paradox that cannot be accepted.

The truce as a threshold to total disintegration

A comprehensive reading of the course of events suggests that this truce is more likely to be an entry point for the dismantling of the Sudanese state than a bridge to its salvation. It could lead to the consolidation of a de facto partition: spheres of influence, multiple armies, different currencies, parallel central banks, competing foreign ministries, and conflicting passports. In short, a state without a state, and sovereignty without sovereignty.

This is a contagious disease; sooner or later, it will infect everyone on the coast, at the mouth of the river, and at the source.

In Conclusion:

Between Humanitarian Duty and National Vigilance

There is no disagreement on the priority of improving humanitarian conditions and protecting civilians. However, the truce being pursued today may bring temporary stability at the cost of a heavy strategic price: the undermining of Sudan’s unity.

National duty demands the utmost vigilance and caution to prevent the truce from becoming a political trap that completes the project of dismantling the state. History does not forgive those who betray their homeland, nor does it pardon those who exchange national sovereignty for foreign dictates. This is all while fully acknowledging that the crisis has deep historical roots.

Hope remains pinned on the awareness of the Sudanese people and their ability to unite in the face of this critical moment, defending one homeland, one army, and one state, indivisible and unguarded, except by the will of its people within the established traditional frameworks, far removed from any force or imposition of power by arms.