Al-Burhan Closes the Door on the Rapid Support Forces

SadaNews - Media leaks about a meeting between Sudan's Sovereign Council President, General Abdul Fattah al-Burhan, and Trump's Middle East and Africa advisor, Masead Boulous, in Switzerland's capital Geneva began to spread on social media, and it was soon confirmed by multiple sources, becoming a prominent item in local and international media.

Although no official from either side has come forward to confirm the meeting officially after more than five days at the time of writing this article, the leaked headlines indicate that the meeting was held in light of Burhan receiving a U.S. proposal to stop the war in Sudan, under a multi-phase plan that starts with a comprehensive ceasefire, followed by allowing humanitarian aid to reach the areas in need, primarily the city of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, which has been besieged by the Rapid Support Forces for over a year.

After that, discussions will focus on political options to resolve the crisis, including restoring a civilian path for democratic transition and considering how to achieve minimal consensus among different political currents regarding their positions on the Sudanese war.

In light of the media blackout on the details of the discussions that took place at the meeting, it has been prominent that General Burhan's position indicates the impossibility of accepting any future for the Rapid Support Forces in the political process, which can be understood by emphasizing that the Rapid Support Forces are auxiliary troops that rebelled against the army.

Therefore, they have no right to negotiate on any political agenda, and discussions with them should be limited to military issues related to reintegration, disarmament, and holding their leadership accountable for the rebellion and crimes committed against the Sudanese civilians, a stance the Sudanese leadership has consistently repeated since the famous Jeddah declaration, which was signed a month after the war broke out over two years ago.

However, since the Rapid Support Forces did not commit to any of its terms, driven at the time by the illusion of their battlefield superiority, the Sudanese leadership wants to remind them of the contents of that declaration, which the militia had previously signed under the mediation of the United States and Saudi Arabia.

New International Positions on the Crisis

The Geneva meeting came two weeks after the postponement of the international quartet meeting, which includes the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE, which was expected to take place in Washington, D.C., without the participation of Sudanese parties, to discuss proposals aimed at stopping the war.

At that time, it was rumored that the postponement was due to differences in viewpoints between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who supports the proposal to expand the international quartet to include the European Union and countries such as Qatar, to build consensus international proposals to stop the war, while Trump advisor Masead Boulous insists that the focus at this stage should remain on the quartet countries, particularly since there are differing views among some of its members on the components of the war in Sudan.

The U.S. State Department did not clarify the reasons behind the postponement of that meeting, which had been prepared at a high level of coordination and consultation among the concerned countries, but the Egyptian ambassador in Washington stated briefly: "The meeting will convene in September."

This development was preceded by a new stance from the African Union, which suspended Sudan's membership since October 2021, following the army leader Abdul Fattah al-Burhan's decisions to dissolve Dr. Abdullah Hamdok's government.

In May last year, the African Union officially welcomed the appointment of Dr. Kamal Idris as Prime Minister of Sudan, considering it: "An important step towards achieving comprehensive governance and restoring constitutional order and democratic rule in the country."

The chairman of the African Union Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssef, stated that the African Union is committed to providing the necessary support in coordination with regional and international partners to maintain Sudan's unity and stability.

The strongest position came in a statement from the African Union Peace and Security Council issued last July, where it clearly condemned the Rapid Support Forces' efforts to establish a parallel government in Sudan, calling on the international community: "Not to recognize the alleged parallel government or provide any support to it."

This position was echoed by Saudi Arabia through a statement from its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which said: "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expresses its rejection of any steps or actions that are not legitimate undertaken outside the framework of the official institutions of the Republic of Sudan, as they may undermine its unity and do not reflect the will of its people."

As for the Arab Republic of Egypt, its response affirming its steadfast positions in support of the Sudanese state was clear, as it openly stated in a statement from its Ministry of Foreign Affairs that: "The formation of a parallel government complicates the situation in Sudan."

On August 12, members of the Security Council stated that they: "Reject the announcement of the establishment of a parallel authority in areas controlled by the Rapid Support Forces."

Future Expectations

These regional and international positions, supporting the Sudanese government and rejecting the establishment of any parallel authority, dealt a strong blow to the Rapid Support Forces project and their regional supporters, as the militia hoped to succeed in taking El Fasher, the capital of Darfur, to establish a de facto government in the region.

However, the resilience of the people of El Fasher, and the rare sacrifices made by the brave members of the armed forces and joint forces fighting under the army's banner, thwarted that plan.

Last week, the militia gathered soldiers and equipment, totaling 543 armed vehicles, to execute its attack number (227) against the besieged city for over 400 days. However, thanks to the valor of the armed forces and the joint forces, that attack, the largest of its kind in months, failed.

Following this failure and the international condemnation of their continuous violations, the latest of which came from Trump's advisor Masead Boulous after his meeting with Burhan, where he expressed shock at the horrific situation in El Fasher and the tragedies caused by the militia's siege of the city, it has become clear that the militia's political project has no future. However, the important question remains: How can a ceasefire be imagined in light of recent American movements?

Militarily, many questions arise about the proposed ceasefire for the purpose of negotiating the future of the political process in the country.

Regardless of the army's stance and the national forces that align behind it, firmly rejecting any negotiation with the Rapid Support Forces regarding a political agenda, there are doubts about the militia's willingness and ability to engage in a serious ceasefire process, as they will seek to exploit any truce to rebuild their leadership structure and reorganize their forces, especially in light of the continued flow of significant military support, as seen in previous experiences during the battles for the liberation of Khartoum.

On the other hand, it is unimaginable for the army to legitimize the retention of the militia in the areas they currently occupy in Kordofan and Darfur, as that would practically mean recognizing the reality that the militia seeks to impose. They will seek to consolidate their authority there with iron and fire, through changing the demographic reality via displacement and bringing in newcomers from outside the country from the tribal incubator that supports the rebellion and fights under its banner.

Furthermore, the presence of the militia in the areas they occupy means the continuation of suffering for the civilians who have been displaced from their homes. In this context, Burhan's statement after his meeting with Trump's advisor can be understood, indicating that the available option for the militia is to submit to state authority and cease the violations they are currently committing, as that will not achieve any of their reckless ambitions.

Moreover, Burhan sought to emphasize that the government, which has achieved significant military victories despite the heavy regional support for the militia, has followed this with political steps that began with the formation of a civilian government, initiating programs for the return of displaced and refugee individuals to their homes in the capital Khartoum, and launching reconstruction programs in liberated states. The government will not allow any political or armed forces to impose solutions on Sudanese people that do not meet their aspirations and reflect their longings.

In any case, the U.S. administration's quest for a direct meeting with Burhan indicates that it understands the Sudanese positions and wants to incorporate them into future proposals to ensure the success of any efforts aimed at building a mutually agreed-upon project to end the war in Sudan.