‘The Sudanese regime lost face with the international community’
Q: Mr. Muhammadeen, did the lack of local opposition representatives, including the leadership of the National Consensus Forces (NCF), make this meeting a failure? Will there be any real results?
A: Had all the opposition parties attended the meeting, it would have had great significance, especially in light of the confusion that happened in the aftermath of the Kampala meeting and the divergent attitudes of the opposition vis-à-vis the New Dawn Charter. Consequently, the failure of all opposition parties was negative for all parties in the meeting. However, it cannot be said that the meeting failed, considering that influential forces were there. The general atmosphere was positive.
Q: How do you view the government’s objection to the meeting, which led them to prevent NCF representatives from attending?
A: We have reiterated that the armed opposition is a reality, which cannot be ignored by the regime. In fact, it is the other way round. Failure to recognise or negotiate with it would lead to one option only: the escalation of armed action. And the recent military operation in North Kordofan is clear evidence of this.
The regime might have partially succeeded in disrupting the opposition’s meeting, but it lost face with the international community. This was alluded to by the meeting’s delegates and organisers. That was a major gain for the opposition -- revealing the true face of the regime.
Q: But Sudanese opposition, such as the Baath Party, or the Revolutionary Front or the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Abdul Wahid al-Nur, also had reservations about the Geneva meeting.
Participants attending the Geneva meeting, July 15.
A: It is not logical to view the opposition as if it is one organisation; it is a broad-based alliance comprising several parties, each with its attitudes. It constantly struggles to meet and work together under the terms of minimum shared positions. It is natural that it differs about certain issues, as happened after the ‘New Dawn’ meeting.
Difference is a natural, expected, thing. What really matters is how ready these forces are to iron out their differences or conflicting views on issues.
Generally speaking, the opposition today is more united than ever before about its position towards the regime. Attitudes become more and more evident, and are moving in one direction: to oust the regime.
Q: What do you think of participants’ declarations that they are prepared to negotiate with the government?
A: The meeting was held under a single agenda: To explore the possibility of building a comprehensive national dialogue. All participating parties and the parties supposed to attend the meeting were fully aware of this -- but this is something very different from negotiating with the regime.
We believe that the importance of the meeting was as an opportunity for the opposition to present its vision regarding the future of the country as a whole before the international community, and that is what happened. All parties stressed the impossibility of entering into any form of negotiations with the regime -- and offered many examples and evidence for that stance.
Q: The opposition can’t agree on key issues, doesn’t that hamper its chances of negotiating with the regime?
A: Whatever the opposition’s problems are, no party can talk about negotiating with the regime. Many parties within the NCF have tried that but their attempts have come to nothing.
Q: The SNA appears to be moving beyond the framework of the opposition alliance. Last January, SNA Leader Abdul Aziz Khaled signed the New Dawn Charter in isolation from the internal opposition. And now you participate separately in the Geneva meeting. Does this mean you are now closer to the Revolutionary Front, especially given your historical background as an armed movement?
A: We were back to the homeland, and announced through our third conference that we were a political force that would struggle peacefully for toppling the current regime. We have now and again said the problem of Sudan will not be resolved by a single party, regardless of its power. Consequently, the unity of the opposition is a key goal of our party.
We are a force for peace and freedom, and our role is to work in that direction all the time. Our efforts should be understood as a national move aimed to unify the forces that believe in democracy, freedom and peace, in order to find a way out of the country’s severe crisis. All parties testify that we have presented several initiatives in this regard. We will continue our efforts in this direction, and will spare no efforts towards achieving that goal.
Our participation in the Geneva meeting has given us the opportunity to explain to the international community that it made a mistake in its dealings with Sudan, focusing on peace first and freedom later. That concept eventually resulted in the loss of the country’s unity and peace.
We have emphasised that freedom is a prerequisite for peace, which cannot be protected by agreements, mechanisms, monitoring systems, or international troops, but by the people only. And the people will only be able to play its role when freedom is ensured.
We have explained that Sudan needs a Sudanese version of international community’s stance towards Syria, where it has thrown its full weight behind the opposition.
