When the massacres and bloodshed in El Fasher took place, we heard cries of condemnation—then came a deafening silence. The catastrophic situation in Sudan remains unchanged; there is nothing new in this country’s file. The back-and-forth fighting between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces continues, while civilians are trapped between asylum, displacement, killing, fear and terror, epidemics and malnutrition. And no one is truly moving to put an end to a war that has no meaning.
The spread of conflicts and chaos—from the Sahel to Libya, to Sudan, to Yemen, to…—is met with an almost total absence of any vision for consensual exits that would return authority to an electoral system and to disciplined governance that properly manages citizens’ affairs.
It seems that none of the parties to the conflict has grasped the absurdity of what they are engaged in. Each side defends its weapons with a selfish, utilitarian logic, caring only about the interests of its own camp—and that is the end of it.
Thus, the first beneficiary of our condition remains the enemy. After exhausting every means of killing and intimidation, what will be left of our homelands then? And over what will the “brothers of enemies” continue to fight?
In political language, there is no such thing as an intractable dispute; everything is open to dialogue and compromise. Ireland, which endured a British occupation lasting more than nine centuries, agreed on “Good Friday” to lay down arms and turn to the electoral option. So what prevents that in our region? And is serving as pawns for the great powers truly a form of heroism in an age of collapse and fragmentation?
Conflicts are not resolved through military alliances or security cooperation. And did Russian security support defeat terrorist groups in the Sahel? On the contrary, it worsened the situation.
Whether we like it or not, there is no escape from laying down arms and sitting at the table with the logic that everyone can win—and that the true interest is the interest of our peoples.
