For almost three years, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have been fighting each other relentlessly. In the process, both sides have also attacked the civilian population, destroyed infrastructure, and weakened civil society engagement, benefiting from the support of external actors. Against this background, the international Sudan conference in Berlin is of particular importance. Managing goals and expectations On the third anniversary of the conflict’s outbreak on 15 April, the German government will host an international conference on Sudan together with France, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union (EU), and the African Union (AU). Foreign ministers from key countries as well as representatives of the United Nations, humanitarian organisations, and Sudanese civil society are expected in Berlin. At the same time, it is important to note that this is not a peace conference. No one should raise their expectations too high. Even a humanitarian truce, which the United States wants to broker with its partners Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, is not currently in sight. It would already constitute some progress if the Sudanese representatives could agree on a declaration to de-escalate the conflict. A joint communiqué of the ministers is unlikely to materialise, given the experience with the lack of consensus at the previous meeting in London. Placing civilian actors at the centre Despite its limited scope, the international Sudan conference in Berlin offers the opportunity for a long overdue change in perspective: away from the warring parties and towards those who are already working for societal and political peace.
Of course, the SAF and the RSF themselves must silence the weapons. However, the military actors alone will not even be able to guarantee a permanent end to armed violence. At best, a power-sharing model would produce another fragile civil-military transitional government. Fighting within the armed coalitions would be likely given the divergent interests of their constituents; a renewed flare-up of violence would only be a matter of time. South Sudan has already taken a similar path: There, armed violence has become part of the political system .
Instead, Sudan needs a new, civilian-led political order. It will take time to develop, but creating the necessary framework for discussion is possible even during the ongoing war. This is precisely the goal of the quintet of five international organisations – the African Union, the European Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the United Nations, and the Arab League – which joined forces at the beginning of the year. The quintet is conducting consultations with numerous civil and political groups in Sudan. In contrast to earlier approaches, there is currently greater unity among the participating organisations as well as a coordinated process design. Different political blocs with ties to the conflict parties and independent civil actors are expected to agree on a Sudanese steering committee that sets the agenda and criteria for a political process. The conference should support this process. Participants should commit not to organise parallel initiatives and instead align existing projects with civilian actors – especially those from the United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, and Switzerland – in support of this process. The civilian components of the conference in Berlin, which is to bring together 40 Sudanese representatives, can be an important step towards a common platform and convey its own messages to the international participants.
Finally, the humanitarian component of the conference should mobilise urgently needed funding. It should also strengthen the ownership, protection, and financing of mutual aid networks such as the Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs). These networks are able to reach Sudanese regions where international aid organisations cannot operate, and their work strengthens social cohesion.
These civilian approaches could help to make the conditions for ending the war more favourable.