Sudan’s Anti-War Coalition in Turmoil: Can Somoud Reinvent Itself?

Sudan’s largest anti-war coalition, Taqaddum, split on February 10 over participation in a new parallel government by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The members aligning with RSF formed a new faction, Taasis, while traditional leaders, including Abdalla Hamdok, created a smaller coalition named Somoud. The fracture may allow Somoud to redefine itself and better connect with civilians under the backdrop of ongoing humanitarian crises.

On February 10, the Taqaddum coalition, Sudan’s principal anti-war alliance, fractured significantly over its involvement with a new parallel government established by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Formed in October 2023 and led by Abdalla Hamdok, the coalition encompassed various armed groups, political factions, and civil society members. Those who decided to align with the RSF are now referred to as Taasis (Foundation), primarily consisting of armed movements seeking to leverage military influence for political gains.

In contrast, traditional political figures like Hamdok have formed a smaller coalition named Somoud (Resilience) to maintain their neutrality after rejecting RSF collaboration. Kholood Khair, a prominent analyst, asserted that political parties would not want to associate with the RSF, deemed as genocidal by international observers. This division illustrates a critical rift within Sudan’s anti-war faction, significantly impacting further political negotiations.

Initially, Taqaddum aimed to mediate peace amid escalating violence, which has led to a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented scale in Sudan. The coalition faced reputational challenges due to perceptions that its civilian leaders were overly accommodating to the RSF during past negotiations. This perception worsened after Taqaddum signed a controversial Declaration of Principles (DoP) with the RSF, following egregious human rights violations by the paramilitary group in recent months, raising serious ethical concerns about its alignment.

Some commentators view the coalition’s fracture as an opportunity for Somoud to redefine its identity and establish meaningful connections with ordinary Sudanese citizens. Alan Boswell suggested that while Somoud may currently possess a less tainted reputation, its smaller size poses challenges in gaining significant influence as a neutral political entity. The West remains cautious, keenly observing Somoud’s actions to determine its legitimacy as a significant player in the Sudanese political landscape.

Hamid Khalafallah emphasized the need for Somoud to engage with local organizations and ensure its initiatives resonate with the realities faced by the Sudanese populace. Somoud has consistently prioritized outreach, according to its spokesperson Bakry Elmedni, who argues that previous criticisms of Taqaddum’s proximity to the RSF were part of a politically motivated smear campaign orchestrated by the army. Despite the opposition, he maintains that there is no substantial evidence linking Taqaddum with RSF support.

While the army has been perceived by some civilians as a stabilizing force upon reclaiming territory from the RSF, it has simultaneously faced allegations of committing brutal reprisals against suspected RSF supporters. Such complexities in public sentiment reflect the dire and multifaceted circumstances in Sudan, with ongoing calls for accountability and an end to violence reverberating throughout the region.

The splintering of Taqaddum highlights the challenges faced by Sudan’s anti-war factions, revealing significant divisions over collaboration with the RSF. While the emergence of Somoud presents a potential pathway for redefining anti-war efforts and engaging with the Sudanese populace, its path forward remains uncertain. The political landscape is precarious, characterized by deep-rooted tensions and humanitarian crises that necessitate genuine commitment to peace and accountability.

Original Source: www.aljazeera.com