The U.S Special Envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, has said the warring parties in Sudan, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) should embrace the proposed 14 August Peace Talks in Geneva, Switzerland, to end the war and suffering of the people.
In an exclusive interview with Radio Tamazuj, Perriello also said Sudan risks becoming a failed state where extremists can set up bases.
Below are edited excerpts:
Q: What is the latest about the Geneva talks between Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Sudan Armed Forces (SAF)?
A: Both RSF and SAF are in preparation for the talks which are scheduled to begin in Geneva on 14 August. Again, the goal will be a national cessation of violence, a full humanitarian access agreement, and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for that agreement as well as the earlier part of that process which we look forward to. And that means an opportunity to help end the horrific crisis in Sudan that claimed quite many lives. At the moment, the rainy season has only exacerbated the issue of famine and disease that have affected millions.
Q: Can I ask you on record about your upcoming trip to Sudan? What is your official assignment for this trip?
A: We were not able to reach an agreement on making the trip on 8 August happen but we are going to continue with plans to visit Port Sudan which I am happy to do as soon as possible. We respect the decision to turn this trip down. We were not able in our system to move beyond the airport. They are not interested in this trip under their circumstances, which we respect and we will continue to look at all options of getting on the ground in Port Sudan as well as meeting with important leaders anywhere in the region.
Q: If the SAF refuses to go to Geneva, what is your plan B?
A: We think it will be a very sad situation. I think we have seen support from the Sudanese people and they want to see their leaders go to the talks, they want to see a ceasefire agreement reached. I think that has been very clear.
So, I think first and foremost, people see that as an opportunity to try to bring this war to an end. And we think it is a very fair and strong opportunity for SAF to do so. We will look at how to proceed in that we will go forward with something but that would be different than what we hope, which is a negotiation between the two parties for a secession of violence.
Q: Will the Islamic governors participate in the Geneva talks as well?
A: This is designed to be a ceasefire agreement and traditionally ceasefire agreements are between the warring parties in a military capacity. So, we have invited leaders in their SAF and RSF capacity. We see this as one part of the broader strategy to bring, not just peace, but inclusive democracy to Sudan. Concurrently with this effort, we continue to support the African Union inclusive dialogue which continues to make steps in that direction.
So, we need this to be a narrow effort at ceasefire and humanitarian access and as this is a tradition, we are focusing on the two fighting factions in that capacity for the talks.
Q: Other armed groups such as SLM-Minawi have expressed their intention to take part in the Geneva talks. Have you invited any of them?
A: Again, it is a ceasefire agreement between the two warring parties, and that has been understood to be SAF and RSF in those capacities.
Q: Has there been a change in position since the call was made?
A: What we know is that SAF is taking the invitation seriously, they are considering participation and let us hope that they will be giving a formal affirmative very soon because we want to continue working with the parties.
Q: The SAF has refused to allow the UAE to be an observer at the talks in Jeddah or Geneva. Have you considered inviting them again?
A: One of the things we have heard from the Sudanese people and SAF is the lack of enforcement of the earlier Jeddah Agreement. We designed the Geneva talks to give us the best chance possible not only just to reach a deal but for that deal to be enforced. We think having UAE at the talks gives it a better chance for it to be a real peace deal and one that can be enforced along with key actors like Egypt and the co-host, Saudi Arabia.
We see this as responsive to the number one issue we hear from the Sudanese people which is to end this war and make that peace stick. And we believe in our relationship, not just with the UAE, but with others in the region we can help the mediator to push us to align towards a real and enforced peace deal. That is our hope for the 14 August talks.
Q: What is the action that would be taken to protect the Sudanese refugees in the neighboring countries, taking the case of Ethiopia?
A: First of all, and I think on a positive side, we have seen a number of the neighboring countries willing to take in millions of refugees from Sudan, but we also know the conditions in many of those countries are quite weak. We are continuing to work with all the neighboring countries both on financial support to humanitarian efforts but also actively where we are concerned, whether that is about harassment or detention or other concerns related to visas and other things.
We certainly heard some of those about Ethiopia and other countries. We are trying to work to make sure that not only can we be a source but also a source of resources because we know this is a real burden on the region. I think that also brings us back to the urgency of the ceasefire.
One of the things that makes this round of negotiations different than earlier rounds is the degree to which the region is paying an enormous price. We know the biggest price is of course paid by the Sudanese people.
We hope that regional alignment about the urgency of peace will be in force in these talks and that helps compel the actors to get to a cessation of hostilities therefore we will see not just a decline in refugee flows but of course so many Sudanese want to return home, but will only do so if they feel safe.
Q. Has there been any discussion about getting aid across the border to Adre in Chad?
A. The border to Adre remains a serious challenge and certainly one of which at least the UN and aid-related humanitarian organizations have not been able to cross. We have long felt that needs to be addressed urgently.
Even two more options have largely been closed off based on rain washing out that border. So it is even more urgent than before to get Adre open.
We also noted that there are enormous humanitarian challenges in South Kordofan, Blue Nile, and many other areas around the country. And this is the point of international humanitarian law which is supposed to be respected. Whether you are a formal military or a militia, this is the basic rule to protect vulnerable people and access to food and medicine. So, we see this is paramount and certainly the Adre border crossing is right among them.
There are also issues of concern about weapons crossing over that border but they are not coming across in UN food trucks. One of the only things that has been stuck at the border right now is food and medicine. So, we need to work seriously as an international community on the arms embargo and other efforts to prevent those arms from crossing but this cannot be an excuse for starving the vulnerable and innocent people of Darfur or Kordofan or Blue Nile who are suffering. This is because of something that has nothing to do with actual UN and humanitarian trucks crossing those borders to get food and medicine to vulnerable people.
Q: Is there a Security Council resolution on cross-border access?
A: There is a Security Council briefing today that will include a briefing from Ambassador Ramtane Lamamra, the appointed UN Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General for Sudan, about both his recent technical talks in Geneva as well as the meeting in Djibouti that I was part of last week.
It is certainly being raised by us and others that we need to be considering all options when it comes to humanitarian aid access but we will see what comes from the Security Council this time. So far we have seen several important resolutions, we have seen an escalation in some of the demands we have not yet seen some of the steps that could be taken to address that.
Q: There have been escalations and attacks on El Fasher in recent days. Is there any other pressure on the RSF again to stop attacking the town?
A: The situation across Sudan cannot be more fragile, certainly the situation in El Fasher has now been for many weeks a source of unbelievable fragility. We have used both sanctions threats and negotiation power, we spent four weeks trying to negotiate a local ceasefire in El Fasher with humanitarian access corridors.
We are disappointed because so far we cannot get an agreement in that regard yet we have hundreds of thousands of civilians in that area in harm’s way and an escalation of violence daily.
Frankly, this is why we wanted peace negotiations to start in April or May or June. We believe that spring was the best time to bring the parties to the table. But there were several barriers to that including lack of political will from some of the key parties. So, we move forward with this format to try to accelerate that process to get a new cessation of hostilities.
As you noted, we have developments in El Gadaref daily as it is a recent dynamic in Sinnar. It is hard for any rational person to look at the map of Sudan and believe that the trajectory took place. It is a situation in which we know not just that millions of Sudanese are suffering and we are seeing straining in both fighting forces in terms of gender command.
We also note how many of the populations that represent the wonderful diversity of Sudan overlap with the neighboring countries and once one domino falls, others could quickly get pulled in. I think this is why we have many of the key powers in the region both on the continent and the Gulf, backing some of the positions and asking if we can have a share in this and try to get this done.
Q: Why do you think some regional powers are backing certain elements in Sudan?
A: Sudan is an enormous country of tremendous wealth and resources whether that is natural resources or just human talent and Sudanese have long benefited the region in terms of human capital as well as other investments.
Having a country that is unstable and has the potential of becoming a failed state is something that creates risks. It is not lost on anyone that this is the place where Bin Ladin built Al Qaeda and it is a place where extremists have set up in the past. And when a state is as weak as this, you will see predators circle and I think that we see countries and forces that do not have the interest of the Sudanese people seeing an opportunity. I think that made it incumbent on all of those in the region to care about the Sudanese people and care about regional stability to say their number one priority right now must be to come together to end this war and get the Sudanese their future back rather than necessarily jostling for a particular interest of one country or another.
I think we have seen a lot of that shifted in the last few months regionally but we have not had a chance to test it because we have not necessarily had formal peace negotiations. So, while this is certainly an opportunity to test the current will of SAF and RSF, I think it is also a moment for the region, including both African and Gulf colleagues, to show their collective ability to ride this show.