Agenda of the discussions and the parties The government required prior consultation on

The government required prior consultation o the agenda of the discussions and the partie

(Geneva Negotiations)… Enveloped rejection…!

The Foreign Ministry called for an end to the militia’s occupation of cities, villages, and citizens’ homes

Saad: Sudan’s sovereignty, the symbolism of the “army,” and the country’s rights mustberespected

Observers: The government statement put an end to the recent speculation

By -Mohamed gamal gandol

The Sudanese government put an end to the state of conflict that prevailed over the past few days regarding the United States’ invitation to the army and militia to negotiate in the Swiss capital, Geneva, by refusing to be present at the new platform except in accordance with specific requirements detailed by the government in an official statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday, Tuesday.

New platforms

The Sudanese government refused to participate in the upcoming meetings to resolve the Sudanese crisis in Geneva. In an official statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs pledged its readiness to engage in any discussions on the condition of ending the militia’s occupation of cities, villages, citizens’ homes, public and private facilities, and lifting the siege on cities, in addition to opening roads for humanitarian aid.

She explained in her statement that any negotiations before implementing the “Jeddah Declaration” would not be acceptable to the Sudanese people, noting that instead of opening new platforms, the rebels and mercenaries must be forced to stop their continued aggression against cities, villages and open roads by imposing sanctions that deter them and their supporters.

The statement indicated that those in charge of the initiative are the same parties as the “Jeddah Platform” and the same topics, and therefore prior consultation should be made with the Sudanese government about the form and agenda of any discussions and the participating parties, with an emphasis that the “Jeddah Platform” and what was done in it is the basis.

Loss of confidence

The Sudanese government called on its American counterpart to hold a meeting to pave the way for peace talks in a way that achieves the benefit expected by the Sudanese people.

It is worth noting that the recent period witnessed an intense movement to resolve the Sudanese crisis through a number of platforms, starting with the conference of neighboring countries in Cairo and not ending with the conference of political and civil forces that was held in Egypt at the beginning of this July, as well as the “Jeddah Platform,” as well as the Ethiopian movements, as well as the efforts of the Union. African and IGAD.

Journalist and political analyst Mohamed Saad, editor-in-chief of Brown Land newspaper, says that the Foreign Ministry’s statement was decisive and represents Sudanese sovereignty and the aspirations of the Sudanese people who reject the “Geneva Platform” for several reasons, including: the bitter experiences with Washington, which reached the point of completely losing trust due to its dominance and treatment. Immature with Sudan’s crises in different eras.

Saad considered that the Foreign Ministry’s statement is clear and is not a blatant diplomatic rejection, and therefore all attempts aimed at resolving the Sudan war without coordination and taking into account the country’s rights must be reconsidered by respecting the state’s sovereignty and the symbolism of the armed forces.

Indicators

Observers believe that the multiplicity of platforms has harmed the Sudanese crisis, as it has imposed a state of conflict. They pointed out that the Foreign Ministry’s statement amounted to a “covered rejection” that put an end to the speculation that has spread recently.

Sudan had canceled a visit by an American delegation led by the American special envoy to Sudan, Tom Perriello, that was proposed on August 7, due to the demands of the Washington delegation to meet Al-Burhan at Port Sudan airport, which the Sudanese side considered a provocation.

Political experts considered the requirements in the Foreign Ministry’s statement to be an undeclared rejection, in addition to the government’s clear apathy as a result of the multiplicity of initiatives that have confused the scene.