The Quartet Paper

Dr Abdel Azim Hassan — Lawyer
The decisive, defining phase that led to the adoption of the timed settlement code regarding the Gaza war — and subsequently to the signing of the Sharm El-Sheikh peace — was the moment when the United States, with all its weight, recognised the necessity of meeting with Hamas leaders and negotiating directly on a prisoner-exchange deal. In the Gaza war, Hamas was the only party that held the key to stopping the fighting, as did its counterpart, Israel. The mediators — whether Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, or the US — had no reservations about performing their mediation roles.
In the Sudan war, however, alongside the multiplicity of local and international parties to the conflict, the particulars and interests of the mediators have further complicated the scene. In any case, whether acknowledged or denied, ignoring this fact will ultimately lead to either mediation failure or the overreach of efforts to stop the war.
The Quartet’s expected failure or delay in reaching a solution is not exclusively due to the absence of neutrality or conflicts of interest as mere procedural issues; rather, it concerns the very substance of the vision and its content. The principle from which the Quartet proceeds remains one-sided, and its most dangerous consequences are prolonging the war and fuelling divisions within society, not to mention the risk of dragging the situation into a continued international confrontation that will harm only the citizens. A one-sided vision that lacks an acceptable representative with real influence on the ground will always leave the Quartet distant from the citizen who is denied the chance to express his aspirations and the solutions he longs for.
Quite simply, Sudan’s war could stop immediately — indeed, all its causes could be ended — if the conflict were characterised as a rebellion against the state and its institutions. The statement issued by the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia the day before yesterday, which explicitly called for an end to the war while affirming the preservation of a unified Sudanese state and its institutions, could create a genuine breakthrough within the Quartet on the one hand, and serve as a practical entry point to halt the fighting and then involve both parties in negotiating the details of a ceasefire on the other. By adopting this stance, the Quartet would — for the first time — align its vision with that of the Sudanese citizen, who views the acts committed by the Rapid Support Forces as a rebellion against the state and a blatant attack on his person and property.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=8108