Addis Ababa Declaration stirs controversy among Sudan’s stakeholders

The signing of the Declaration of Principles between the Civil Democratic Forces alliance (Tagaddum), headed by former PM Abdallah Hamdok, and the commander of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Lt Gen Mohamed ‘Hemedti’ Dagalo, in Addis Ababa yesterday has elicited diverse responses from Sudan’s various political stakeholders.

The Addis Ababa Declaration outlines the RSF’s commitment to a cessation of hostilities, subject to the Tagaddum coalition aligning with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) commanders on procedural matters.

Deputy chairman of Sudan’s Sovereignty Council, Malik Agar, characterises the accord as a partnership between equals, emphasising the interconnected nature of the signatories, adding that “there is nothing new or ground-breaking here”. He also questioned the validity of the agreement and the legitimacy of Tagaddum in conducting such an accord, stating that the former PM’s alliance is a “well-known political incubator of the RSF and staunch supporters of their rebellion”.

In a statement yesterday, the Sudan’s Revolutionary Front (SRF) rebel alliance welcomed the Addis Ababa Declaration, hailing it as a “crucial step towards achieving peace in Sudan”. The Front emphasised the importance of addressing issues, such as the cessation of hostilities, humanitarian aid delivery, as well as the protection of civilians.

Sudan’s Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) separately also expressed support for the agreement, outlining its potential to resolve the humanitarian crisis and initiate discussions on Sudan’s multifaceted political challenges.

However, much like Agar, not all voices are unified in their endorsement of the agreement. Sudan Tribune’s founder and editor-in-chief, Mohamed Nagi, highlighted concerns over potential misinterpretations of the alliance between Tagaddum and the RSF. Nagi stressed the need for additional clarifications to dispel doubts and ensure the agreement aligns with the goal of removing the military from politics.

Noureldayem Taha, leader of a factional split within Sudan’s Liberation Movement (SLM), criticised the agreement as disappointing, asserting that it prioritises the military over civilian forces. Taha urged the international community to reconsider supporting such agreements, underlining the need for a comprehensive national reconciliation.

The Darfur Bar Association (DBA) expressed a mix of approval and criticism, welcoming the agreement’s focus on humanitarian issues but pointing out flaws related to the political process and the potential legitimisation of military involvement in civilian affairs.

Ahmed Babiker, leading member of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, strongly criticised the agreement, viewing it as a setback for civilian forces and a potential catalyst for the militarisation of political life. He warned against giving legitimacy to armed groups seeking a political role.

Amidst a flurry of responses, the future course of Sudan’s political terrain remains shrouded in uncertainty. Observers closely monitor how the signatories navigate and address prevailing concerns, all with the shared objective of achieving enduring peace.