Are Sudan’s warring parties close to starting negotiations? By Ibrahim Shammo
Ibrahim Shammo (Master’s student in International Relations and Diplomatic Studies)
In this short article, I will not provide a direct answer to this question, but rather focus on clarifying an important concept in the science of negotiation, namely the tension between interests and values, and its impact on the negotiation process. I will try to shed light on the relationship between interests and values and how they are addressed in the context of failed negotiations, with implications for the ongoing conflict in Sudan.
In simple terms, negotiation is a process that depends on *the subject matter of the negotiation, *the common desire, and *the interdependence of the conflicting parties, these points are central to any negotiation process.
How to understand the tension between interests and values?
The relationship between interests and values is key to understanding the dynamics of negotiation, as the impact of their similarities and differences can determine the success or failure of the process.
Similarity of interests may lead to conflict between the parties, especially if the target or resource is a common goal or geographical area, which hinders reaching an agreement. On the other hand, different interests open the way for bargaining and exchange of benefits, which facilitates negotiation and creates opportunities for joint solutions.
On the other hand, similarity of values promotes trust and understanding between the parties, which sets the stage for constructive agreements. Differing values lead to a clash of principles and visions, making negotiations difficult and threatening to collapse.
Implications for the Sudan crisis:…
In the context of the Sudan crisis, the impact of the overlap between interests and values is clearly visible. The Jeddah Declaration signed on May 12, 2023 failed to achieve progress due to the similarity of interests between the two parties to the conflict, especially on the issue of the RSF’s departure from Khartoum, while the difference in values related to respect for international humanitarian law deepened the gap between them, as both parties violated this law and the rules of engagement.
With the recent developments that witnessed the advance of the army and the retreat of the SLRS militia to the Darfur region, a question arises about the possibility that the difference in interests could become a catalyst for negotiations, or perhaps a secret agreement aimed at dividing influence between the two parties: A scenario in which the army takes control of the central region, leaving Darfur to the SSR militia. This scenario may lead to more pragmatic negotiations, and perhaps the implementation of a mechanism similar to the “5+5” as in the Libyan case. However, the question remains: will the army abandon its transitional allies and consider Darfur as a bargaining zone? Any bargaining at this level will not end the war, but will merely be a process of moving the conflict away from the areas of influence of the historical elite.
In any case, successful negotiation requires a careful balancing of interests and values, and the fostering of mutual trust between the parties. Without this, the risk of slipping into paths that perpetuate division and conflict remains.
Ibrahim Shammo (Master’s student in International Relations and Diplomatic Studies)
About The Author
