Jeddah Agreement

Jeddah Agreement

D. Suleiman Muhammad Diplo

For the text of the Jeddah Framework Agreement, click

I, like all Sudanese, followed the Jeddah Framework Declaration. At first glance, I did not believe what I read, the formula I received, so I looked again to confirm that what I read was a true reality. What prompted me were decades in which innocent lives were lost among the best youth of the country, north, south, southeast, and west, and in which the energies of wealth that the country was in dire need of were squandered to continue the ride of progress, development and development, and on top of that time that has passed in vain since the dawn of the country’s independence, which negatively affected the country’s progress and which we cannot in any way compensate for or realize what we missed.

I found myself forced to wonder about what is happening around us and what are these supernatural forces that have guided us to this path of salvation. Is it the international circumstances that everyone knows about, or pure national will, or is it the arrangement of future alliances?

I have concluded that the international circumstances and we know that the United States in particular plays a pivotal role in limiting the Sudanese dispute in the hope of offering to sign the Sudan Agreement in the year of the re-election of the American President, which is an American matter of which we only care about what is good for us and we must benefit from it. I certainly have no doubt about the sincere will of the National Rally - this is one of its practices during its fifteen years of existence, and its standing on the constants, many of which are translated into the heart of this agreement. It remains for the government to translate what was agreed upon to confirm its sincere intentions in order to justify the agreement. As for the latter, I have no doubt that political action is not devoid of maneuvering, especially if we extrapolate the future map of political action in the new Sudan.

Reading this agreement at first glance removes despair from the shoulders of any sincere patriot and brings hope to Sudan (governed by the rule of law, not by region or tribe, and under the umbrella of an independent judiciary whose decision is not influenced by a party or entity, under a free, pluralistic democratic system, and above that, expanding the participation of the people of Sudan by adopting a federal system that allows all regions of Sudan to elect their representatives and rulers).

To achieve this goal, the agreement went to establish constants that, in my estimation, are the guarantee of a new, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Sudan (in which freedom of pluralistic political action prevails, with a guarantee of freedom of expression, the press, and trade union and professional work, accompanied by human rights charters).

What we mentioned above are the apparent surface of the agreement, but the essence of the agreement - and upon careful reading - the following points caught my attention:

The first: approval and absolute authorization from the head of the assembly to the government for the subsequent negotiations at point (A-1). I find myself wondering how the President of the National Democratic Rally and the President of the Democratic Unionist Party, and everyone attests to his caution and accuracy in what he says, grants such absolute authority over the results of future negotiations, unless there is a final agreement that has been reached and he has seen it, which is a possible matter supported by the statements of officials in the government and the negotiating parties. The question is, if that is the case, why the obfuscation, the continuation of negotiations, and the delay of the fate of the Sudanese nation? Here, and in my opinion, the answer is nothing more than providing an opportunity for future political alliances and signing guarantees for the regime before announcing the final agreement.

The second: With full acknowledgment of the global necessity of adopting a free market economy, what was stated in paragraph (B-Fifth) is: With an emphasis on moving forward with the policies of openness and raising the hand of the state....), according to which it may be understood that the government is baptized in continuing its policies and approach in the field of economics, and it can also be understood as blessing the government’s approach to transforming the public sector into conference partnerships, which is what the group wrote in criticism and upon which it based positions over the past fifteen years and the introduction of this formula on this site. It is only an indication that the government is not serious about abandoning its approach, and the agreement is only a means to gain momentum for what it has pursued.

The third point: What was stated in Paragraph (A-5) Sudan is governed by a decentralized (federal) government within the framework of Sudan’s territorial integrity) and noting that there is a big difference between the federal and decentralized systems, is what is meant here to reconcile the positions of the government and the movement (the assembly) by taking whatever is agreed upon?

Fourth point: The general principle that was approved in Paragraph (B-9) Commitment to the principle of redressing grievances and paying harm) is in fact a translation of the Assembly Charter, the part related to accountability, so does the First Representative really agree with this principle, when he fully knows what injustices have befallen this good people? So how can the grievance of the people of the millions who died be redressed? How can the grievance of the millions who were displaced be redressed and how and how?

The last point: What is wrong with the agreement is that it completely ignored the fundamental issues that disrupted the agreement, and by that I mean the issues of the three marginalized regions, which have now become the core of the dispute.

The bottom line is that the Jeddah Framework Agreement, even if it remains subject to implementation until that date, is to be praised for having established all the basic principles that pave the way for building a future Sudan. It is to be praised that it came in support of efforts to establish the foundations of democracy and guarantee the freedom of the citizen. Moreover, it came as an affirmation of the country’s unity in light of a fundamental change in the system of government from parliamentary to presidential and from central to decentralized or federal. Above all, it paved the way for the expected agreement in Naivasha to be a more comprehensive agreement instead of It will be an agreement between two factions (the movement and the government), although we still hope that the expected agreement will be comprehensive for all the people of Sudan, and it will not be so if the final agreement is not accompanied by the rest of the political forces, and ensuring that the people and peoples of the marginalized areas are not marginalized, by taking into account their visions and participation in a matter that is their destiny.

Continued: The ruling regime and Machiavellian charters The ruling regime and Machiavellian agreements