In the long and painful story of nations trying to speak their way out of war, Sudan stands at a familiar crossroads: a military leader proposes dialogue, a regional body offers its blessing, and those who have suffered most under the guns refuse to sit down. The African Union's endorsement of General El Burhan's initiative, offered without the ceasefire its own council had previously demanded, has not opened a door to peace so much as revealed how many hands are pulling it in different directions. When the architecture of dialogue is built by one side of a conflict, the question is not whethe
Sudan's Anti-War Forces Reject AU-Backed El Burhan Dialogue Initiative
Dialogue in territory controlled by one side, without ceasefire, entrenches division.
Mark
Why does it matter whether dialogue happens before or after a ceasefire? Aren't both aimed at ending the fighting?
Mimi
Because if you're talking while one side controls the territory and the guns, the weaker side has no leverage. A ceasefire first creates a level playing field. Without it, the military can dictate terms.
Luke
But the source doesn't actually say the AU rejected the ceasefire-first position—it says the Commission supported this initiative anyway. That's a choice, not a contradiction.
Mark
So the AU is betting that dialogue can work even without a ceasefire in place?
Mimi
That's what they're saying. They think inclusive talks might lead to the ceasefire. But the opposition thinks that's backwards—and risky.
Luke
The opposition groups are clear on that. What's less clear is whether the AU Commission actually understands the objection or just disagrees with it.
Mark
What about the demand to exclude the National Congress Party? That seems like it could narrow the table.
Mimi
The opposition says those groups started the war and prolonged it. They're not being arbitrary—they're citing a documented record.
Luke
The source says "documented role" but doesn't specify what that documentation is or who verified it. That's worth noting.
Mark
And El Burhan—he's the one who staged the coup in 2021, right?
Mimi
Yes. So when he proposes a dialogue, there's an obvious credibility problem. He's not a neutral broker.
Luke
The opposition makes that point clearly. What we don't know is whether the AU weighed that history and decided to move forward anyway, or whether they simply didn't center it in their thinking.
The Pulse
- The AU reversed its own ceasefire-first position by endorsing El Burhan's dialogue proposal on August 31, triggering immediate alarm among opposition groups who see the move as a betrayal of principle.
- Anti-war civil and political forces submitted a formal memorandum warning that talks held on military-controlled terms will not heal Sudan's divisions but harden them into permanent fractures.
- The opposition demands the exclusion of the National Congress Party and Islamic Movement, holding them directly responsible for igniting and sustaining the conflict.
- Even the Rapid Support Forces — rivals of the military government — rejected the AU endorsement, accusing it of bias, leaving the initiative without credibility on any side of the war.
- The AU Commission insists its support is conditional on broad civilian inclusion and a vision of a unified, sovereign Sudan, but that vision has yet to translate into conditions anyone trusts.
In the long and painful story of nations trying to speak their way out of war, Sudan stands at a familiar crossroads: a military leader proposes dialogue, a regional body offers its blessing, and those who have suffered most under the guns refuse to sit down. The African Union's endorsement of General El Burhan's initiative, offered without the ceasefire its own council had previously demanded, has not opened a door to peace so much as revealed how many hands are pulling it in different directions. When the architecture of dialogue is built by one side of a conflict, the question is not whether talks will happen, but whose peace they will ultimately serve.
Sudan's anti-war political movements and civil society groups have formally rejected an African Union endorsement of a dialogue initiative proposed by General Abdelfattah El Burhan, the military leader who seized power four years ago. In a memorandum submitted to the AU's Peace and Security Council on September 2, the opposition warned that backing the initiative risks entrenching military rule and deepening the country's fractures rather than healing them.
The dispute cuts to a fundamental question of sequence. The AU's Peace and Security Council had previously held that political talks must follow a humanitarian ceasefire — yet on August 31, the AU Commission welcomed El Burhan's proposal without those preconditions. The opposition sees this reversal as dangerous: talks held in territory controlled by one warring side, without a prior truce or genuine broad participation, will only calcify the divisions the war has already carved.
The objections go beyond procedure. El Burhan himself called for the dialogue, formed its preparatory committee, set its agenda, and chose its venue — giving the military disproportionate control over a process meant to be genuinely Sudanese-owned. The opposition also demanded the exclusion of the National Congress Party and Islamic Movement, citing their documented role in prolonging the conflict, and called on the AU to reaffirm its ceasefire-first stance and coordinate with the UN, United States, UK, and European Union.
The AU Commission defended its endorsement by arguing the process must be inclusive, drawing in civil, political, and societal voices from across Sudan toward a unified, civilian-governed state. A spokesman for the dialogue committee welcomed the AU's backing, saying regional support could help attract wider international engagement while preserving the committee's independence.
Yet skepticism is not confined to civil society. The Rapid Support Forces also rejected the AU endorsement — but from the opposite direction, accusing the body of siding with the army. That both anti-war civilian forces and an armed rival faction have refused to recognize the initiative's legitimacy reveals just how fragmented Sudan's political landscape has become, and how far the country remains from any process all parties might trust.
Sudan's anti-war political movements and civil society groups have formally rejected an African Union endorsement of a dialogue initiative proposed by General Abdelfattah El Burhan, the military leader who seized power in a coup four years ago. In a memorandum submitted to the AU's Peace and Security Council on September 2, these opposition forces warned that backing the initiative could entrench military rule and deepen the country's fractures rather than heal them.
The dispute centers on a fundamental disagreement about sequence. The AU's Peace and Security Council had previously stated that any political process should follow a humanitarian truce and comprehensive ceasefire. Yet on August 31, the AU Commission reversed course, welcoming El Burhan's dialogue proposal without those preconditions in place. The opposition groups see this as a contradiction—and a dangerous one. They argue that holding talks in territory controlled by one side of the conflict, without a prior ceasefire or genuine broad participation, will only calcify the political and territorial divisions the war has already created.
The opposition's objections run deeper than procedural concerns. They point out that El Burhan himself called for the dialogue, formed its preparatory committee, set its agenda, and chose its venue—giving the military leadership outsized control over a process that is supposed to be genuinely Sudanese-owned. The groups also demanded that the National Congress Party and the Islamic Movement be excluded from any talks, citing documented evidence of their role in starting and prolonging the conflict. They called on the AU to explain its endorsement, reaffirm its ceasefire-first position, maintain neutrality, and coordinate with international mediators including the UN, United States, UK, and European Union.
The AU Commission defended its position by saying it supported the initiative because it believed the process should be inclusive, drawing in civil, political, and societal actors from across Sudan. The ultimate goal, the Commission stated, should be a unified, sovereign Sudan governed by legitimate civilian institutions with a single national security structure and peaceful means of resolving political disputes. Othman Mirghani, spokesman for the Sudanese-Sudanese Dialogue Committee, welcomed the AU's backing, arguing that regional support could help secure wider international backing while the committee preserved its independence. He said the initiative aimed at direct dialogue among Sudanese inside the country and that the AU could help facilitate contacts with the UN and Western powers.
Yet the opposition is not alone in its skepticism. The Rapid Support Forces, a paramilitary group aligned with a rival government faction, also rejected the AU endorsement—but from the opposite angle. Their spokesperson, Ahmed Tagad Lisan, accused the AU of supporting the army's position and showing bias toward one side of the conflict. He echoed the concern that El Burhan's control over the dialogue's structure gives the military undue influence. The rejection from both anti-war civil forces and the armed opposition underscores how fragmented Sudan's political landscape has become, and how difficult it will be to construct any process that all parties view as legitimate. The AU's endorsement, intended perhaps to move the country toward peace, has instead exposed the deep mistrust that surrounds any initiative led by the military leadership.
Notable Quotes
Any credible political process must be genuinely Sudanese-owned, with participants, agenda and timing agreed by Sudanese stakeholders.— Anti-war political and civil forces, in memorandum to AU
Regional backing could help secure wider international support while preserving the committee's independence.— Othman Mirghani, spokesman for the Sudanese-Sudanese Dialogue Committee
Want the full story?
Read the original at allAfrica.com ↗
War & Conflict