From New York to Sudan: Dialogue at the Quadri- and Quintet Table

By Muhannad Awad Mahmoud
In my previous article, I said that an assessment of the ongoing developments pointed to the possibility of a meeting of the Quadri- and Quintet groupings on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, and that the relationship between three tracks would be at the heart of the discussions: cessation of hostilities, the humanitarian response, and Sudanese political dialogue. The African Union confirmed that the meeting took place in a statement issued yesterday (23 September 2026). But the meeting itself is not the most important point; what matters more is the space given to dialogue in the statements that followed.
The Chairperson of the African Union Commission stressed that the humanitarian, security and political tracks should move forward in parallel and reinforce one another. The meeting called for a roadmap linking humanitarian action with a cessation of hostilities and civilian dialogue. The Quintet then stressed the need to deepen engagement with Sudan’s diverse civilian constituencies and work to bring them together around an inclusive political process. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission identified three priorities: a humanitarian truce, a cessation of hostilities, and an inclusive, Sudanese-owned dialogue.
These statements do not mean that the meeting adopted any particular dialogue mechanism. Still, they place Sudanese dialogue at the heart of the declared political efforts, alongside humanitarian action and the security track. The call for the tracks to advance in parallel cannot be interpreted as a call to wait for the war to end before Sudanese people begin discussing their country’s future.
The word “diverse” deserves particular attention. Bringing civilians together around an inclusive process cannot be achieved simply by limiting participation to those who already agree, or by granting a single alliance the right to speak on behalf of everyone. It requires opening consultations to political, civil, and community forces, while listening to objections about the timing, format, and guarantees. That is the task of preparing the dialogue: to create a space different parties can enter, rather than assuming they already agree before inviting them.
This task has already begun inside Sudan. According to published statements by the spokesperson for the Dialogue Preparation Committee, Engineer Osman Mirghani, the committee has met with political parties and alliances. It is engaging with more than 100 community groups. The committee has also announced that its consultations with political and community forces have made substantial progress and received support, with some constituencies beginning to nominate their representatives for the dialogue. Inclusiveness, therefore, is no longer merely a promise for the future; its initial steps have already been taken, although the responsibility to broaden them remains.
At the same time, Engineer Omar Al-Digair was quoted as saying that Professor Nabil Adeeb had telephoned him to invite him to the dialogue, and that Somoud rejected the invitation on the grounds of the proposed format. Somoud has every right to maintain its position, call for an end to the war and demand guarantees for participation. But demanding an end to the war is one thing; making its cessation a prerequisite for any dialogue among civilians is another. What was announced in New York calls for the tracks to move forward in parallel, not for one to be suspended until the other is completed.
I had said that Somoud’s presence in New York would probably not, by itself, be enough to change the international partners’ approach to Sudanese dialogue. What the African Union published reinforces that assessment, within the limits of the declared position: the Quintet stressed the need to bring Sudan’s diverse civilian constituencies together around an inclusive political process. The statement does not say what was discussed in every meeting, but it also does not announce that political engagement with Sudanese actors will be postponed until after the war ends. If Somoud has objections to how the dialogue is being prepared, raising them through the Sudanese consultations would give those objections a chance for practical discussion, while giving the dialogue a chance to show it can accommodate different views.
As for the Quadri- and Quintet meeting’s call for closer coordination between the political and security tracks, this does not mean that the Dialogue Preparation Committee should negotiate a cessation of hostilities or monitor any agreement. Those tasks belong in their respective forums with the parties concerned. The committee can continue its consultations and efforts to bring Sudanese constituencies together for dialogue, while efforts to halt the fighting proceed on their own track. If progress is achieved on the security front, it could help broaden consultations and facilitate the participation of more Sudanese in the political conference. In this way, each track can reinforce the other without dialogue having to wait for a security agreement.
The African Union statement did not announce a ceasefire agreement or adopt a final roadmap. It identified priorities and areas for subsequent action. Inside Sudan, however, political work did not wait for such a roadmap: meetings have begun, contacts have expanded, and some constituencies have started preparing to participate. This is where the significance of New York converges with what is happening on the ground: a dialogue owned by Sudanese people, open to broader participation, and proceeding alongside the necessary efforts to end the war.
Dialogue does not wait for the war to end; it helps Sudanese people agree on a path to ending it.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=18325