 Okay, good afternoon everybody and good morning for everybody else watching us Today it's going to be a discussion about national dialogue in Sudan and we have guests in With us here at the United States Institute for Peace and we have two percent participants to Skype I'll make a quick introduction to our panavos today. We have Ambassador Layman who's no stranger to Sudanese affairs. He was the former special envoy to Sudan in 2011 and he's a senior advisor to the president. We have Dr. Abdullah Ali Ibrahim. He's an Emirates professor of African history at University of Missouri. He had written many articles and books about the religion and politics in Sudan specifically and Decolonization in Africa. We have Mr. Ahmed Hussain Adam. He's a visiting scholar and a co-chair of the two Sudan forum at the Institute for Study of Human Rights at the University of Columbia He's currently writing a book about the conflict in Darfur and the regional and international community Reaction to the conflict and he's also an LLM graduate from Westminster University in the UK and We have We have Mr. Nusreddin Abdul-Badi also a lawyer graduate of Harvard, Harvard University with LLM and international Law and Human Rights. He had been a consultant with Alpine Society Foundation and a senior researcher with Brith Valley Institute and we have Mr. Mejid Jizuli through Skype. He is Currently a scholar at Bern Bern University in Germany and he is a blogger and he conducts workshops about Sudan and two Sudanese actually and peace building We have also Mr. Sayed Al-Khateed through Skype. He is the director of the Center for Strategic Studies He has been also a member of the negotiation of presenting the Sudanese government in negotiations Before the referendum and with SPLM North. Last but not least Mr. John Timmon. He's the director of the African program He covers Sudan, South Sudan and Somalia including other sub-Saharan countries. His focus is conflict prevention and current Conflict I will just give a quick Notes about how we're going to discuss this topic today We since we have people here in the room with us They can just let me know when they want to comment on a point for those who are with us through Skype Please let the control squad know and they will whisper in my ear and then I'll give you a chance the topic of the discussion is the national dialogue and Political arrangements It's going to be in two parts. The first part is going to be about the The national dialogue why now why important the type the mechanism the strategies and who's going to participate And the second part is going to be about the security like about the challenges to the dialogue that includes security situation in Sudan political participation and strategies of how to conduct the dialogue and After that, I will give without any further ado I will ask Ambassador Lyman to start the proceedings because he needs to leave early to attend a funeral of the second president of the USIP Sam Lewis. So Ambassador Lyman for is yours. Thank you very much and thank all of those who are participating in this Dialogue Let me start by saying that when I was in South Africa in the 1990s I asked someone very close to president to clerk Well, how is it that your government embarked upon this transitional process and negotiation with the ANC and all the changes? And he said that it was in the 1980s that the people at the top of the government came together and realized They could keep this up for a long time They could probably keep up the apartheid system and ruling for another decade, but they knew they couldn't keep it up forever So the question was how could they move through a transition that protected them and their people and still took a put it took account that the change had to come and that led them first into secret negotiations with Nelson Mandela and then unbanning all the opposition parties and into the transition to democracy in South Africa and Of course in that transition The people who had been in government and out and who had been in many ways the beneficiaries of the system actually came out Well, they're doing well in South Africa. That's what democracy does It allows for everybody to have an opportunity in Sudan The government can keep running Sudan as it has for a long time through a system of patronage political control Use of militias and military Etc, but it can't keep it up forever and the cost of running Sudan as it is now is very very great So the challenge the question for the government and for everyone else is how do you make this? Transformation how do you take the steps that say look we can't keep this up forever? We have to make a major Transformation how do we do it and the national dialogue which has been talked about a great deal is of course a means to start That process going it's going to be complicated. It's going to be difficult You have to define exactly what it's meant by a national dialogue and who should participate and then you have to decide what is the authority of the dialogue is it a Rulemaking is a constitution Writing is an advisory group all those issues have to be worked out and then the process itself I would just remind people that once the government in South Africa had made those decisions and opened up the process It still took four years Before the election in 1994 that finally brought about the end of apartheid and the democratic Liberation of South Africa So this is a long process But if the government and all the others are truly committed to a process That will lead to transformation and a transformation that all Sudanese Can not only participate for benefit from Then it can happen and it can happen without more turmoil without more conflict and without more Suffering by the Sudanese people Thank you, ambassador I think of that point I would like to move to dr. Abdullah You were one of the first people who ever suggested this during the first years of the government. I remember you had something called Decorative fatigue And it was written in arabic, but I think how do you think things are similar since 2000 this is like a A Quarter of a century after writing that And this is the reason why I'm kind of a little bit pessimistic about the possibility of doing a national Dialogue because You know, we don't want to get into the mistake of seeing dialogue as a good thing and a healthy thing In In glamorous terms In a national dialogue you are talking Speaking truth to a power And that makes power irritable and And so We we need to be very careful about About how to present national dialogue. I 25 years ago I was I was I was basing my argument on that all the forces in the country Got fatigued the culture of the Cold war in which most of these most of The ideas of the parties and things like that were Formulated this culture was falling apart and disintegrating and so people need to make these revisions And that was a call 25 years ago. I'm not sure if the Various forces made this recognition that they are out of the game or that their ideas are So they talk about the orbit that the constant things things that are Stablished that they are not going to give up on and And and there is no culture of forgive forget forgive And that is the as as as ambassador said it is you know, that is the kind of the underpinning of the Of the creative dialogue in South Africa I remember the time when People like religious people called ambassadors of christ We haven't had that luck so far into that And I saw people people in Sudan making obituaries of mandala and talking about his forgiveness and his Wide perspectives while they are really Following a very narrow path in their own life and in their own practice so I'm just saying we really need to take national dialogue with a grain of salt Great. Thank you so much. We will go back again to the question of accountability and building building this trust because we We will come across that. Let's go to cartoon. Mr. Khalid. Do you hear me? Yes, I can Yes, um, what do you say about that? What do you just What's that? Yeah, go ahead finish the question, please. Yes. No, I just want you to comment On ambassador's lineman and the for Abdullah his comments Yeah, I've uh, I I heard a good part of what the ambassador lineman has said and that's what I was going to comment on um, my first comment is I would say that the parallels with the south african Experience Stopped at At the fact that they're not the national dialogue I I don't think that there is any relevance to any other Alleged similarities between the situation here and the situation in apartheid south africa clearly and But I I take his As Hopeful remarks regarding the opportunity that this initiative Would avail also the news of it is indeed as it has been declared an inclusive sudanese process and The indication is even out there for Even even the arm groups If they show any willingness to give the national dialogue at least a first opportunity to other means that they are Claiming to achieve their their political goals That would be enough for their inclusion. I think it's a really opportunity not just a necessity For our situation. Yeah, they are both These factors that the country really needs Uh, a new minimum of consensus That without which it would be very difficult to see how We could continue to go and particularly in our regional Situation now when you look to sudan as Part of the whole of africa and the great lakes and and and the Middle East at the same time With all that is going on The sudanese need to really avail themselves of this opportunity To start this dialogue. I think I think there is a good opportunity here the initial responses from many political forces inside the country have been positive And and also responses from outside Uh, let me call them Observe a nation or or friends of Of the sudanese peace process Also, they have been positive Thank you. I have a question for you to follow up on that What what is a dialogue when you say a dialogue? I'm it was really hard for me to follow if it's something Initiated by the government of course, but you said that the armed conflict Armed group have to come and agree Why they did not agree and what is the definition of a dialogue because ambassador lineman highlighted a very important point that Defining the the the dialogue and the function of the dialogue is very important What is it that people had agreed to? And what is it that you're offering to the political parties to agree to All right that the the invitation itself to this national dialogue has by way of just giving the contribution of the of ncp as identified the agenda points or major Areas for four of these areas and these are we need to come to a minimum understanding and agreement In regard to one piece to democratization Three the eradication or the alleviation of poverty and for What we call the sudanese identity these four areas are areas where we have being This you know talking back and forth to each other since 1956 and And the PSI claiming Some sort of a final word regarding how to achieve peace and how to maintain or regarding The democratic system that we need to adopt and adhere to in Sudan We feel like these are major areas where most of the points of difference between different political schools of thought Are to be found and can be resolved And the objective is to arrive at a minimum Of consensus that would be enshrined in the the new constitution And then the the the field is after that would be open Hopefully and level for every political school of thought to try and Develop the political process To torch their own ends. I mean there are certain things that need to be agreed And then the political difference after that In a democratic fashion Should be encouraged This is these are the the the areas that we need to discuss and the objective to have all these Feed into our constitutional document Great, thank you very much regarding the armed groups. I don't I didn't understand your point clearly But I said that they are included nobody is excluded from the invitation to come to the table And with with their agenda if there the the initiative said if anybody Wants to add to to these agenda items. They are welcome Great, we will go back to the armed group at some point when we discuss the security situation Every one of our panelists would like to comment Please And I guess we'd like to say that the crisis Sudan has reached You know very Turning point, you know, either it should be resolved through political and peaceful means Or actually is going to be resolved by military means So what we need is real transformation. Actually, I prefer actually, you know The transformations to be through a peaceful means which actually dialogue can play a tool actually for this kind of transformation But actually there is no way and there is no time actually given the situation right now on the ground that To play games or to buy time or something. So the outlook has to be all inclusive serious genuine That can bring all the Sudanese stakeholders together to discuss our standing issues that actually led the country to the current situation Even, you know the separation of this house to them or something like that for a long time Actually, Sudanese people they haven't got that together to discuss this Because what we want why this house to them actually separated because as we see the same problems and the same policies that actually Let and push this house to that to separate our existing can now What we need actually for this kind of dialogue to be a serious and genuine and to bring the Sudanese people together to discuss You know the real issues the fundamental issues related to the state our religion is related to identity and all this kind of origin Because the idea is to have a peaceful trans democratic transformation in the country But you know the government of Sudan and I actually I refer to good point that made by ambassador Lemon that when he said you know refer to the example of South Africa and South Africa the apartheid regime at that time Actually, they had the political will Actually, they took the initiative They took the first step And this is actually very important what we need actually from the government of Sudan also You know to have a political will and to understand that as I said, you know There is no any kind of playing tactics or games or to drag the country to another kind of election or something like that This is very important But they need to convince the people right now in therefore The south school the fun and blue night who are under enormous attacks Who under actually scores as campaign they need to convince them that really this time they need business They really mean business and they want this, you know to be ended peacefully That that is very important And this actually was back to the issue of who is going to participate in the dialogue or something But these are the people who are right now suffering great deal in the ITP comes a refugee come You need to convince these people you need to convince them that the Sudanese state is also there still And you know their citizenship also respected this I think that's uh, it's very important And I'm I'm sure you know as I said, you know other to be Sudan either to be transferred peacefully and actually I prepared the peaceful transformation of the country or You know this work could continue and as I said, you know Sudan really at work is with itself And this is going to be very Painful and actually Sudanese people they suffer too much and they need actually to embark in a national dialogue to discuss The general actually that was the starting issues because we don't want more disintegration Another is said, you know, if the current situation continued, there will be Disintegration in the country and there will be more actually fragmentation of the country and as I said, you know Who are going to be like another Somalia or another, you know, one of these countries But but whether this is actually referred to the owner the issue of the ownership itself I think one of the main things is the ownership We don't want actually the ncp or the ruling party or even the regime to say that we offer this and this We don't have a donors at the seapel all the Sudanese have to be donors All the Sudanese actually to have to to own the process from the beginning from the procedure issues from Until substantial issues In this case, actually you are going to have a genuine and serious actually process because as I said, you know Before the government of Sudan said many things about national dialogue But nothing actually materialized on the ground. So as I said, you know, they need to be a lot of things They need to take a lot of measures and to give good signals and positive signals to Sudanese people that this time They they really mean real business and they want this actually to be resolved peacefully Great. Thank you. Mr. Ahmad. This should also be repeated again in the recommendation when we start to wrap up the first round because The definition of the dialogue has to be really really clear Who's the owner who set gets to do what and who gets to say what? because it could be a just an advisory function And and and this is something maybe we need to discuss also with the with the challenges because the government might not give Too much if if it's not being safe and people are not going to trust A lot if they're not giving what they want. So it's it's it's going to be a very Fine line to walk on. Majdi, I want to hear your voice And and and if you have any takes on what you have just heard The debate The assumption you're making here is that the political conflict could be resolved by means of a negotiation between Elite formations And this to me seems a bit divorced from socio-economic realities in the country It is assumed that the national dialogue would bring in the major political parties around the negotiation table However, as far as I can judge, this would exclude vast swathes of the population who do not find political representation in these political organizations Be they rebel movements or be they the mainstream political parties Of course, this builds up on Abdulaziz's thesis that the political order that was born out of Sudan's independence Has come to a point of exhaustion and it is this this is a very clear diagnosis and I would like to underline it It is exactly this exhaustion that makes them less reasonable representatives of the voices of the people in question As far as I can judge the types of conflicts that are now emerging in Darfur, for instance Would be very hard to manage By means of an elite bargain consider for instance the exit of populations like the communities and the leadership of somebody like Musa Hilal or Mohammed Hamdan Hamedi from southern lizegat outside the political order proper They don't even now consider the ncp as a representative How would these populations who are actually fighting in a sense Be included a national process that is built on representation of political parties And what sort of negotiation would that deliver to issues that Contribute to forging conflict in Darfur essentially land questions and so on So my feeling that assuming that an elite bargain would deliver the type of Transformation you saw in South Africa is a bit short-sighted and it does not consider the socioeconomic realities in Sudan today Great. I think we're already tapping into the the challenges From the get go and Would you like to comment on that? First of all, I would like to thank you usip for organizing this very significant event Our national dialogue in Sudan there is no doubt that national dialogue is One of the most important Things that we the Sudanese need to do right now In order to deal with our problems intractable problems and actually Find a way for a better future For ourselves and for the generations to come We all agree on that and I think what we need to discuss actually Is not the necessity of this dialogue not the meeting even of this dialogue because There is no particular or a specific definition for national dialogue This can be actually one of the issues that can be discussed as the beginning Of the process, but we need to agree first of all As Magdi Yuzuli mentioned that the current political organizations do not represent Uh, genuinely the Sudanese aspirations And the Sudanese people that is one thing that we need to actually emphasize And I would be very glad to hear Other perspectives from those who will participate on Skype, but I know That these these organizations Are now trying to negotiate with the government to either maintain their Privileges or restore their privileges the old political club in Sudan Can reach any agreement with the government that would Secure or guarantee For it what it wants From the government participation in power maintenance or restoration of Of privileges and that is very important Which means that we need also to discuss Not only those who would be participating in this process, but also the principles upon which the whole process Would be Established actually we have only three scenarios as far as this whole process is concerned First of all, we could either find maybe A reasonable atmosphere For national dialogue, which means that the government Would take very serious decisions To make sure that everyone takes part in in the process That means the current laws that restrict freedoms should be abolished It also means that people should be given Free access to the media and among other Actually measures that should be taken. These are not conditions. These are requirements necessary Steps that should be taken in order to have a durable Exercise of national dialogue when we could have as I mentioned and as Dr. Abdullah mentioned and maybe an agreement between the government and the organizations of the old political club And this will prolong the life of the government indeed, but it will not sort out the chronic problems of the country and the final scenario is to have this Propaganda of national dialogue continue without having any solutions and this will lead to the fragmentation of the country If not in 10 years in 20 years or maybe more than that Great, you know, I might just add that It's important that we don't discuss the concept of national dialogue within a bubble And recognize some of the other processes that are going on and discuss then how A national dialogue type of process is going to fit into those other processes And so what do I mean? For example, the doha document for darfur How does any sort of national dialogue process feed into that for those who still think that the dbpd is something that we Shouldn't hold on to the ongoing negotiations in Addis Ababa led by the african union high level panel How does that fit into this process? Dr. Khatib mentioned the constitution making process. How does a national dialogue process Square with the process of needing to write a new constitution, which is also a very Fundamental process which can also get at some of the underlying grievances and drivers of conflict in sudan And then finally, how does a national dialogue process relate to elections that are supposed to be scheduled for 2015? And I think this is a particularly important question What I think we know from other successful national dialogue processes in other places is that they really take time Two three years, maybe more I've been a bit concerned by some of the discussion i've seen about national dialogue in in sudan saying it will happen in october It doesn't happen in a month. It probably doesn't happen in a year And so I think Accepting that reality early on is very important But if we accept that then Then any process is going to run into 2015 when elections are scheduled if There are elections in the midst of a genuine national dialogue process I think there is a risk that that throws the dialogue process off track, which would be A shame if it really does have some momentum Yeah, you're really right because First the time is not only needed for for the dialogue, but also for building the trust and and for people to invest in it it feels very Very like Short planned especially with the with the time when of the of the Election and the writing of the constitution and a lot of people are Speculating that the government is is making this whole national dialogue in a way just to make the constitution and to To resolve that question of the constitution and still run for election Which is not going to be fair even for the old school parties because they're not on equal footing when when it comes to to resources and And ability and capacity to run for elections Feel free to to since we're already discussing the challenges and all that and If you what about mr. Khatib if you could respond to the thing about the time and how The time is not enough to to to start the or to not even to to come to to to conclusion with the Dialogue as you just said that a lot of people have not been Did not respond yet And there's also the question that mejid jazuli raised about Those who are out of the traditional political Parties The non-state actors as rebel rebels or people like who don't have a political representation How do you think the current initiative addresses those? sector of the society or Or groups in the society Well, if you can hear me Yes I think he raised Mejid jazuli raised a very good point And the initiative itself we it has Also addressed that we it is said that this is not only a dialogue between the political parties amongst themselves whether this these political parties Are traditional or new or or what have you it needs to include all other Communities in Sudan and and so that that that point is Is very much on the minds of everybody as they or before they embark on this on this national dialogue and His or anybody else's Suggestion as to how to include because we are going to be faced by claims Of of representativeness of this or that segment of our society And and that was Really the reason why it had to have been declared as an all inclusive Dialogue for everybody so as not to even give an opportunity to any claim of denial of opportunity Or a banning from participation To to even be raised by anybody Having said that so I agree with him that we need to have everybody present there all all classes all Different localities all different interests And You need to see themselves there, but the elite that he has As Correctly, I again agree with him Criticized for not Being 100 percent To resolve these issues He himself and and me and probably all of your guests Sudanese are part of that elite So They have to be there But other So that is society need to be there and that was Why it was this invitation was sent to everybody Including as I said earlier to the Armed groups if they say, I mean we are not looking here for Something as radical as saying we Because there is an initiative for national dialogue here by renounce You know resorting to violence for good, but at least they should say we will give this dialogue a first We will get to this part about how feasible that to have everybody. I will just give the last For mr. Ambassador since he has to leave I apologize for that and others You know whenever with this kind of thing is raised in any any country has to face Is the first question the first reaction you get is it's hard. Yeah, it's going to be very hard But I think to just say you're going to include everybody is also a trap Because if you invite everybody there's no structure So one of the first things that has to be done is to think through How you structure it and that means perhaps a series of different dialogues or or or Sub dialogues that move to how you get this representation How do you decide who represents all classes, etc? So there's a process here of of just defining The whole that which which needs to be done and it seems to me that One of the first steps is to put this process under a structure other than the government itself That is to create a vehicle that can begin to think through this whether it's a judge or it's a Structure that's respected That begins to consult with people as to how you bring people in and you have a series of of dialogues Until you have defined clearly for everyone how this will move from a general discussion To something more definitive. It's going to be difficult and I agree with john. This is going to take some time But the fundamental early decision on the part of the government and the others is This is going to lead To a fundamental transformation of the way sudana is governed if that isn't the starting point Even though one hasn't defined exactly where that comes out If that isn't the starting point then people will get quickly discouraged and it won't go far I apologize for having to to step out But I hope this dialogue continues and I think a lot of good ideas have come Sorry, mr. Khatib for interrupting you earlier Say something about what prince lineman just said We will Actually white since the structure of the dialogue has been coming up in the conversation From most well, it's it's about that as well Everybody has been talking when when this initiative was made and the initial responses And maybe rightly so everybody was asking what is the mechanism who is going to be actually Seeing to it that this that the national dialogue actually Starts and and and develops And the initiative when it was declared it said that we As sudanese all of us need to to talk about this mechanism the mechanism is Very clearly it is not the government The mechanism itself needs to be agreed to by all all You know who are going to be participating in this dialogue when I say all of course I don't mean that you are going to Consult every sudanese about this mechanism, but the Those who have already Responded positively are talking about the mechanism and I think it's going to be declared hopefully very soon basically it is going to be Some some sort of mechanism that that is made up of sudanese who have no affiliation to any of The the political forces that are on the scene right now great. Um, I will have to like I will presence I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but because we want to keep the mechanism at at a different Session so we can easily respond to that but since we're still off the structure part I would like to take dr. Abdullah, but hold that thought Because we're going to go back to it when we start talking about the recommendations Thank you. Yeah In terms of the structure and how are we going to structure this we are talking about the Entities that are present and active and in practice Probably Nasreddin and Majidi We are talking and I we are talking about Forces that are absent Not really in In practice And I mean by that what came to be known later as the civil society And I'm not talking about civil society in general terms. I'm talking about The specific forces of labor students tenants And the like And these cannot Be represented in this in this dialogue Without a A democratic environment without liquidating certain laws that prevent Free elections trade unions free elections to students And tenants formations This needs to be emphasized because This force Was or has been the major force in all political changes The parties where has not have not been a major force in the major Transformations in Sudan, and I'm specifically talking about October revolution And and and 1985 revolution The rebels Uh were assisting factors in this transformation. They never toppled any government Up to this moment Although they are the most vocal the most vigorous today So the if you are if you are talking about a conflict that is called culturally and politically and historically ingrained you You need not to miss on these forces And this is and this puts it on al-Khateep's Quarter, what are you going to do with these forces in a structure in the dialogue? What how are you going to stay with what we call the labor movements? laws trade union laws with al-muncha that is Everybody in for example the railway From the from the top leaders to the To the lowest paid those are all in a trade union, which makes it a fast What about the students now their students are withdrawing completely from the party for politics There's these used to be the guys who make Who who really do the change by changing the balance of power We are talking about dialogue without changing the balance of power that that can happen And the the the government will always have the upper hand today after the presidents talk about dialogue A guy was killed Every day we have a A newspaper man two three four at a time And the president would go to the police forces and tell them take all the money you want What what should we call The money that is cited on the on the line for for for the Special uses for these forces So you cannot you know unless you change the balance of power You are talking about dialogue. You are talking about it being genuine, but you are really working under the shadow of big brother Great, I think we should start making the tally of the all the challenges we have first we have the problem with the Structure that it's it's a bit not clear and and and it only focuses on political parties and those known power we have the problem with the time frame that A we have a constitution that's going to be invalid B we have an election that's too soon In which like it's very hard to have Viable dialogue done before then and then we have the balance of power of Who's who and I think the balance of power It's pretty much linked to the problem or the process of building trust and and maybe this is The best the first step to address is how to build the trust Um on the part of the government and on the part of the participants Over they might be and and and maybe also on a sub challenge We have the representation of others, especially that most of the Trade unions and others are pretty much affiliated with the ncp the this the school the It's pretty much politicized And and and takes a sharp affiliation with the ncp as well So this balance of power and part of like this is one of the challenges Is is there anything else? yes, um, I would like To comment on one idea that came up about the militias And uh, these militias are disillusioned with the government of something Well, I think the militias has been have been created by the government of sudan And actually they are acting on behalf of the government of sudan If you talk about him a team militia actually they are under the Sponsorship and organization and control of command by the SNES or sudan insecurity force or something So there is no way that to say, you know, they are actually acting independently. So this is very important actually I have to say that the other thing also before, you know going to all this kind of detail You know the conducive environment for this dialogue and they said, you know, there have been many occasions That president Bashir and the government of sudan say something about dialogue, you know, they launched initiative about dialogue You know, I'm talking about, you know, guppity in 1999 or something like that And then another thing actually also done conference in 2008 and then also another things, you know After time after time actually they're saying but the question is are they really serious this time and can win You know, I'm saying this because what is happening on the ground right now, you know And this is one of the challenges, you know, because there is a war and don't forget that, you know This stage Which actually, you know, led the government of sudan to talk about dialogue Is because they are ongoing conflict because sudan is at work with itself There is a conflict now, you know, siding therefore in south gulduvane and balloon aisle What we are going to do about this kind of thing This is the government of sudan since al-bashir launched his speech in january 227 Did he did anything that to convince these people and to send them positive signal that actually this time he is different This time he really, you know, understand and recognize their citizenship I don't think that the situation in the ground come from this kind of thing because as we see as we see right now There is a scores as campaign in therefore south gulduvane and balloon aisle Horabashir actually attacked yesterday the areas, you know, just by nihila also attacked And al-fashir ITP comes and all this kind of thing. So what we need is, you know, to give this kind of signals You know, they have to refrain from attacking civilian population They have to refrain from harassing the ITP They have to refrain from, you know, attacking and killing, you know Innocent, you know, students who are demonstrating or something like that All we need, you know, signals positive signals that people these people are really need because without conducive environment There will be no trust can be built You talk about the trust and this is one of the challenges because there is a huge gap of trust that need to be filled And I think the owners is the only government of Sudan. So you have to take measures That's why, you know, a lot of people they are very disappointed Of al-bashir president Bashir, you know, his speech in January 2nd because people expected measures tangible measures Tangible, you know, kind of, you know, poor seagulls, you know, and and points, you know, to convince the people But people disappointed because nothing actually came out of that speech until now All they see is more attacks and more killing and more arrests and more burning us The Dr. Ibrahim said, you know, to, you know, newspapers and all this kind of thing We really need a creative enabling conditions, if I may say Enabling atmosphere so that, you know, can lead the country for all this kind of thing About the representation, I think all we say this has to be very inclusive that actually is the time But in each phase to stop the war, to stop the conflict is one of the main thing And I think I referred to John, you know, a point about the ongoing processes There is a process actually in Addis Ababa about the two areas Yeah, I want to talk about the ad hoc This mechanism of like you mentioned that you said How you want to have all these ad hoc Peace talks or negotiations to fall into that Is that possible? No, I don't think that you're going to get, you know, some nice neat Package where you can make it all fit together and it's all going to work out perfectly And, you know, I think we have to emphasize here We can't wait for perfection on these things in order to move forward Now that's not to say that the current situation is is amenable to Some of what we're talking about here because I think it probably isn't right now But this is going to be messy and there are going to be some processes that that probably sort of Disappear But I still think that we need to be a lot more clear as to what we really mean when we say national dialogue And it starts to be a risk of Becoming this sort of all-encompassing buzzword that means different things to different people and You know, if you're trying to reach some sort of consensus on governance of the country and these very fundamental issues That starts by some sort of consensus on what the process even means and it still feels like we're a little bit ways off Yes, that's true because I I want to throw this question again because obviously what we mean by a dialogue is completely different than what the government means According to say the Khalid that they have invited everybody to talk and What the maybe that's the process and that's as far as it goes to the government at this point Maybe the government itself needs some assurance from the from their its own partners at this point Well at the other side, there are people who think that dialogue is actually sharing power That's for my understanding and To that end nothing has been delivered. Actually the environment is not At all to deliver such thing um Do you have anything on this routine? Well, I I would add that we need actually to have specific Measures in place in order to start that dialogue national dialogue Regarding the the meaning. I think we should Agree or or consider agreeing on defining national dialogue as a process. There are different different definitions Academic definitions for national dialogue Some people might think about it as as a method Some people might think about it as a purpose in itself With no any commitment to reaching agreements on specific issues, but I think in our particular situation National dialogue should be a process through which we can Actually discuss the issues that were Actually Raised by the Torah Khatib in particular identity Uh, the identity issues the issue of transforming the country to democracy This is very very important With regard to what we need to do before we embark on national dialogue. I think the government needs actually to Abolish all the laws that restrict Human rights and fundamental freedoms. That is one two. It also needs To limit the power of the national intelligence and security services, which has become an empire action in Sudan It can do whatever it wants assassination of students actually stopping writers from Actually contributing to their newspapers and so on three we need actually to have a session of hostilities between the Warring parties in Sudan Right now We might not be able to reach as we know an agreement a peace agreement with different Movements that are fighting the government for very legitimate reasons, but we need to have a session of hostilities From the part of the political organizations I think and I when I say political organizations again, I don't mean as the only the Political organizations of the old political club. I also mean the new forces use the student organizations that That are actually representing a new generation of Sudanese activists and politicians who have their own view and perspectives On how the country Actually should be ruled in the future the the main question is the question of governments So these political organizations need to take the invitation Seriously, not forever, but at least for some time we will Maybe determine one year or six months that we will take this initiative seriously And we will wait for the government to take some practical steps towards preparing the atmosphere for Actually meaningful debate over the different issues that are Actually that need to be addressed Mr. Al-Khateeb, do you hear me? Yes, I can. Yes, I would like to refer to you about two things one the time of question especially with all these issues that are planned like Conflicts on Blue Nile, Kurdistan, Darfur You have an economic issue also deteriorating in Sudan. You have A lot of challenges facing the government Maybe the that they might be the reason for the government to wash this process of the of the national dialogue but don't you think that Doing that before 2015 It's too early for the process to their fruit And the second question I think it's actually it's more important than the first one Is to what extent the government is actually considering Crossing like Reaching out if reaching across the aisle to people to build that trust Not only Saying that we send invitation You come according to our terms while everything status code does not change like We especially all these news about students being killed and and the aggression starting again over and over again in Darfur And like the freedom of expression and all that to what extent is the government actually considering and making the environment Conducer for trust building and and more invitational than just inviting people to come All right You see that the quality of sound that my end here is really You know That good, but I think your first question regards the the time available the timing or the time available for the discussion in this dialogue And and the second one As I understood it Is you know Some sort of a conducive environment Based on the premises that the environment right now is not really conducive for a free Dialogue have I have I Yes, yes, pretty much. Yes, you're correct. One is about the time 2015 and the other one is about the conducive environment and Human rights situation in Sudan Right, I think you know the the the gravity of I mean What we are we are getting ourselves into and the country Makes time really a very important issue. So while I understand The point of people who say are we going to be Able to discuss all of these very serious issues and very thoroughly In in the time that is available to us now before before the elections Or and between those who think that there's no time to really waste anymore. We have seen the process of Somalia when they were Perpetually meeting to discuss the such issues In Kenya for years and years This this needs we we need to really calibrate that so that we do not Do injustice to very important issues by not giving enough time and at the same time knowing the nature of you know, our people and and And and our really great love for You know, analyzing things to death and beyond We need also to be careful not to have this as an open ended sort of that will defeat the purpose of this night National dialogue it is based on the fact that we have very serious challenges And at the same time we have opportunities and that these opportunities are not going to to stay there waiting for us until we You know finish splitting all hairs and doing all kinds of In-depth analysis for I have a question for you of that When you say that there's no time for this I do understand that especially given all the challenges that government is facing but at this point are you like because The like the elections there's also a constitution that's going to be invalid And don't you think for the process of making um very uh more Genuine constitution reforms and rewriting that don't you think that the political environment should be uh not like now and and and and for that political environment to improve To to produce a constitution that it's going to be a permanent constitution Don't you think that the political parties and political players should have enough Time to prepare themselves They should have worked through all the weeds of the of the of the conflict that been there for 25 years The government the country has been at work Since the beginning so you cannot over finish that in less than a year and a half I'm I beg to differ. I think uh if people come to convene with seriousness around The table and talk about these issues I think one and one and a half years is is is quite adequate time for people to resolve the major Uh issues that need to be actually fed into a constitutional drafting process because you you you you cannot go into this thinking that we are going to Result every single problem that sudan is faced with So what about that mr. Khatib? I have a follow. I know like there's so much to say about the topic But off your point that you just made don't you think that One of the major issues that will take us again to making the environment conducive Don't you think the most important thing now that actually the government activates The the the laws in the constitution currently about human rights and and and freedom of expression And don't you think that could build the the the Trust needed for this process to happen It could happen actually in a year if if if the environment is more conducive if if there's more More trust brought to the table About about the environment being conducive like I indicated earlier when I was talking about, uh, mr. Juzuli's Remarks, I think everything that needs to be done or can be done to make the the environment more conducive to a free Dialogue should be done by the government and I think there is there is a latitude for that. I think Many things are being contemplated But I I need to make a point here people need to differentiate between Demands or or or ideas that are supposed to be more Of the nature of what needs to come as an outcome of this dialogue And and between cbms. These are different things And so because you are you you are going to open the the debate and and close it before the dialogue itself starts People are going to say from this side the the you know human rights Are not yet To to the level that would make this dialogue, uh, you know Flourish you will find people from the other side not only the government But those who want to enter into this dialogue and have others not come to this dialogue will say no The human rights situation is fine. You don't want that to start before the dialogue itself starts You don't want that to be uh, some sort of a bone of contention Before also then he's come to discuss it seriously and intelligently. So, uh, so cbms like for example declaring you know Acquiescing I might say and mind you. I'm not talking. I'm not speaking for the government here I'm speaking as an observer who sees what is going on and who can claim that This uh thing the government would do or not do I think some of these things are going to be Met to an extent that is going to be considered by the government as reasonable and by some of the of those who have Welcome the government's invitation as reasonable. So, I think thank you. I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you. I'm really sorry But it's just the time I'm going to tell you that I will I'll be uh, also, uh, Discontinuing I'm finding difficulties and I have to run anyway and I before going away. I want to thank you very much Thank you for inviting us availing me of this opportunity and I also would like to salute the other Participants in this in this dialogue. Thank you very much. Sorry for the difficulties. Thank you Mejdi in the state decided to leave but There's a point of criticism to be made about how the discussion has been going. I think the first is how abstract it has all become I mean And the abstraction I I think comes from the assumption that you're talking about a negotiation process between the political forces of the mainstream And that's why issues like political freedoms freedom of expression freedom association come second Because for a for a meeting between terabi and president basheer to happen or between terabi and sardegh or sardegh and basheer to happen You don't really need a lot of political freedom. You just need to jump in from one house to another but for genuine political process That has a popular nature that involves people and wide organizations You need freedom of expression. This is not an outcome of the process. This is the initial precondition of it And if these freedoms are not there are not available and people can't clutch them Then there is no there is no national dialogue to talk about Now abdullahi earlier on said something about the balance of power which brings us back from this abstraction of a process Of a liberal minded process that is designed top down by a decree of government or by a speech of a president Into a matter that brings in people into the political arena And this is exactly what we need and I don't think this is something that is going to happen by deliverance from a government This is something that's going to happen by organization Where people have political demands The fact that the government cannot see these things now or is not willing to see them Abolishes the idea of a national dialogue in itself and leaves us at the space of conflict. Of course conflict is not always armed but The the forms of conflict that we are now seeing are heading more and more towards an armed nature and Political conflict is becoming much more difficult than it was because people don't have avenues to show their politics or demonstrate Their politics because they're reduced to the basic minimum of political existence now The idea that the government can continue talking about national dialogue without Translating this into a popular process makes it all a bit ridiculous. I must say Yeah, right. Um, we need to I think more focus about how to make this conducive But I think again, we're going back to the point of of john and the others about the definition of a national dialogue I think we are seeing it from different Perspective and I think for the government Well, one assumption is that the national dialogue is something like an extended CPA negotiation process But we've seen what where that ends anything that doesn't have a popular element to it and that is not associated with Some sort of political emancipation allowing people Freedom of association and freedom of organization to show what what these issues are because the issues that I can see now Are totally limited to power sharing really it's all about bargaining shares and cuts in ministries But these are not the socio-economic realities of the country. These are not the daily concerns of people who would be Candidates for inclusion in this political process And I think we should hear from from the others what this differentiation is between an elite bargain And a popular process and and I think that's the heart of the matter. Are we heading towards an elite bargain? Something like the CPA and extended fashion including the mainstream political parties Or are we heading to a political to a popular process that brings in communities and people and organizations? For being out of the terrain and this is in essence also a class issue Great. Thank you so much. That's interesting points. Dr. Adalo Yeah, uh, uh, regarding the uh How to how to introduce? The a new Uh, some new blood into this we need to distinguish between a national dialogue and the kind of Conflict resolutions negotiations that Have been the order of the day for a long time And I'd like just now to to look at Addis Ababa at this time, you know, we have people coming from Sudan to To negotiate a a settlement and people from southern Sudan Coming to negotiate a settlement Look also at the government of Sudan is now Trying or and and trying People like a sir arm and and all those look at the situation in southern Sudan in which People like baghdad mom and all these people are Being tried before court So How long for how long are we going to go this past? We need to aspire at at at one point of time and look at other things So that we we seem to have Come to a the the the end of this road And Also, we as dawn said we need to keep the fruits of this road Dauha and all those things and many Sudanese are frustrated because Some american diplomats diplomats we are talking about the dawha Has expired or ended or something like that But we need to keep all these things and we turn to a kind of a national dialogue in the In the term that we are trying to define And most importantly Because the kind of dialogue the kind of negotiations taking place now in Addis Ababa other places Have been designed conceived as As what you call it putting out fires For a long time the guy who Seems to attract the attention of the government and the international community is arable with a gun And this is the reason why the civil society kind of fell through the cracks And In the rare moment they remember this with society. They are talking about capacities and things like that and picking here and picking there So we need to understand why we have this kind of stalemate Seems like Implematic now in Addis Ababa These are enduring conflicts and enduring conflicts is about Society about politics about culture ingrained in this And peep and the international community wants all that have been all the time trying to to to put out fires Without really looking at the civil society. Although as I said the civil society in Sudan is robust Is rigorous and it has a it has been tried as a change a force of change And people are not trying to say, okay. Why don't you have a an arab spring? Like this is a must First of all, I very much agree with the point that the international community has a tendency to to focus a lot on the Firefighting and the crisis of the day without Simultaneously being able to focus on the longer term change But I want to go back to Majji's point about how to make this a popular process And i'm an elite process because I think that really is at the crux of the issue and I think there's A lot of open questions about if and how that's possible I think that raises a real question about the role of the international community in any sort of national dialogue process And when I say international community, I'm not really talking about the west or the us I'm talking more about africa and the sort of closer international community But is there a way For africa to to help to carve out the space Needed for national dialogue if you look back at some of the consultations that happened in darfur Prior to the au report on darfur president to becky's report They did pretty extensive consultations around darfur. There were some flaws And some others can probably pick up on that but they were also Consultations unlike any others that have happened at least in the recent peacemaking process In terms of from my understanding participation and some frank dialogue happening So is that somewhat of a model that can be used Throughout the country in order to have the kind of grassroots popular Consultations that need to feed into some sort of a larger process I don't know the answer to that but I think we need to start looking at those Concrete ideas as to how to create the space that we all I think agree is needed in order for a genuine process to unfold Okay. Thank you, john. I have a question that also falls between what john just said and majdi it's like To what extent people actually going to feel safe to say what they want And again, that takes us to the conducive environment to what extent people who are not affiliated with any one of the political parties Who are not part of any civil society just like individuals And and to what extent they are safe to say what they want What is the mechanism of to gag how they want it to be? And there's so many questions also about the transition transitional justice And and how it's going to be part of the national dialogue. This is also Comes up a lot in the conversation I just want to say that you know Uh, the nature of the regime is different from the initial of the regimes in You know during numeric time or during abut time in 1964 or something like that Because now we have you know hundreds of militias. So it's the entire country is very very armed So it is very difficult, you know, you know to say that, you know, this is just without political work from the government Is going to be ended gets peaceful or something like that. So let's remind ourselves with double and also the current struggle I'm struggling actually what in Darfur or south school the fire on Bologna has, you know, legitimate kind of ground Because, you know, this is because of the failure of the post-colonial state and the failure of the elite You know, you can see them the fathers of the independence or those who actually associated with them or something They failed actually to do it instead that to be inclusive is inclusive That's why all this kind of problems also, you know are happening right now when there is a military struggle or something Also, one of the challenges and you know the yet dangerous This is not good to be elite or something. Also, there is a danger that this also to be like northern northern I mean Northern reverient kind of process or something without actually including or without putting on board from the beginning People actually from Darfur from south school the fire and Bologna. This is one of the main dangers And let me also say there will be no legitimacy Or support for any kind of dialogue with that would actually people on the ground they feel it feel it, you know Safety feel it, you know in terms of security and all this kind of thing as I said, you know There is bleeding actually people are bleeding right now actually on the ground And and and and I think we have actually to consider this, you know in a proper freedom of expression I think one of the demands very very important But also actually the safety of the people on the ground. I think also one of the Yeah, it's pretty much Actually it says it all if someone about the role about the international community I think the role of this international community. I think is very important because I said we just mentioned that But what do you think about the point that John raised that a regional force? Actually has been more closer to the situation and had More consultation that could help more with the popular Part of the because you already actually tested the regional organization. I remember very well in 2004 We made me say it. He was the director of peace and security council of the african union at that time He said therefore was a case case for the african union and they said that they would succeed actually in in this case But actually the role of the african union is complete failure in terms of security In terms of security in terms of political, you know process and all this kind of thing from what I see is right now You know, I'm very proud to be african. I actually support the african union But with the current leadership of the african union and current capacity I think they cannot actually be able to facilitate this kind of national dialogue what we need is actually, you know Multi, you know, I mean organization, you know from different kind of international community You know, you know And others especially or security council and some of the african cathedrals They have to come form some sort of forum. Maybe you can call it friends of sudan or something like that You know to facilitate, you know bringing the people together because the current mistrust is going to be very difficult You know for the sudanese actually to come together actually and I know that this is sudanese process And has to be sudanese process, but we need to facilitate us But the african union cannot facilitate this in any way, but the my last my last answer also is You know, this shouldn't be dictated by the ncp This should be owned owned by the sudanese We will come back to the structural part and and and that's very interesting. Don't maybe you wouldn't want to respond after We go to mejdi mejdi you have something to say I I'd like to comment on the african union process in that forum I think as john rightly said it was one of the most successful processes That the au in sudan ever organized the problem was it never came to frutition What the final outcome of it apart from the report was very little But the the way which was done the scope the length the The participation was magnanimous one must say that And I think it is it might not be exactly the model to follow But it's definitely the type of engagement you need on the other hand you probably require levels of organization from the communities involved to bring in themselves and their forms their own forms of organization their own agency and not this dictate by A government or by the united nation security council as much as I care Or even by the african union you This there is there is a level of agency that has to be kept to the people involved and not immediately delivered to A mediator or a supervisor or a facilitator and this type of agency was to a degree visible in the au process When tabum bicky was playing it out before he turned into other issues when his focus was therefore Was pretty interesting and the types of issues that came out Brought us away from this prison of thinking around the power sharing all the time and Who has guns and who doesn't it allow people who don't have guns to make their voice heard because it's not Restricted to the To the warring parties the idea that political problems and social problem economic problems in sudan Are Limited to the warring parties is a false one and it only creates more warring parties It invites more people into the battlefield But it does not reduce the capacity for violence when you only focus on these players The one big advantage of the au process in in therefore was exactly this it allowed other people who do not have arms to play In the field to be involved to have a voice and to organize, but it's not only about having a voice It's also about organizing political forms novel political forms that would contribute to to a wider process And in that regard sudan is not a blank slate I mean there is a long tradition of indigenous political organization in the country It has taken multiple and varied forms through its history going as far back as the mahdi and as recent as 1985 People are pretty ingenious in devising their forms of political organization And this agency has to be restored to the citizens of the country Great. Thank you very much. I have a question For you nasreddin about the transitional justice And how do you see that as a part of the national dialogue and whether should it come first or Be addressed at literary point Well, I think justice in general Should be one of the principles On which we should agree As one, you know, things that we need to make sure that is not compromised During or after the process of national dialogue This means that we should make sure that every Buddy who Committed or commits human rights violations or Fundamental freedoms should be held responsible Through domestic or international justice mechanisms We know that we we have a lot of issues right now. We had a lot of issues in the past That have to do with with justice and justice should certainly be one of the of the principles of national dialogue What about the big elephant in the room the ICC and and How how how we're going to deal with that is well, I think We we should also make sure that we don't compromise this issue Justice is very necessary for any durable peace in sudan. It is necessary for stability And that is one issue that we should actually emphasize While we are talking about this national dialogue process Justice as we know can be done domestically and it can also be done internationally Depending on the situation Of those who can actually be tried domestically, but we know that there are people who cannot be tried locally or domestically because They are powerful and the whole this ICC System was actually invented to deal with this kind of issues. We should not compromise that You can see that I think we are trying really to There is some revision of that at least probably not in sudan, but if you read lineman's Proposal and if you read a big and Mondan is And I think A reading of trying really to balance between justice and and democracy and peace I think when we refer to the south african experiment is it doesn't it doesn't it it it it seems to Just to support Mostly the question of Peace over or stability democracy over Over justice because they you know, even the national african national party was condemned Because of its atrocities, which are very limited and very narrow and and and when the national african national party protested To Told them no president Who mandela said them no we need to accept that So there is there is this question of the elephant in the room. What are we going to do with it? We can keep talking about you know People being accountable and things like that, but What ultimately we were left with in sudan With the ICC is a wounded beast in sudan And and this is a a personal problem and a Assisting problem the guy is he's having his his back to the world Elections won't serve any purpose because he would like to be there So i'm not saying you know give him a safe way But would we accept A negotiations taken into taken properly as we are trying to design it now Are we going to accept? the lineman's proposer The biggest proposal this needs to be addressed particularly in places like darfur and in between between themselves and between I mean southern cordova Rebels generally because this seems to be like this thing that they keep keep keep talking about it I would like to say some one further word about popular movements And how can how can we help them? We are trying to look at the african union this and that But i'd like to look to have a look at the rebel movement people with the gun. How are they helping? the The civil society movements Look at the the the the the So their liberation movements when they came with the cba and something like that They never paid any attention to the question of democracy within hartoom and within the north and in the totality of the country Today we have a kind of a revolving door A movements coming, you know, there are four movements especially They come they agree with the dictator and they split Look at davages. Look at cc. Look at minnawis They come they make negotiations sometimes they say, okay, we would like to have the The governor of hartoom How are you going to help democracy when you when you so determine that hartoom is going to be yours And what about three five millions people in hartoom would like to vote for someone irrespective Whether it's that foreign or anything. So these kinds of deals and quotas That the that the that these movements and splitting movements do with the regime they perpetuate And so they need to think about How they are going to conjoin the care cause for democracy and genuine democracy and how to pursue their military You go ahead First of all about the issue of justice and the icc Actually, there were crimes actually even before the icc coming to being you know in sudan There is no question about that and the icc actually came because after 2007 or something and the conflict has been since 2007 or something But but you know in sudan we have you know to know this who are not in a post conflict Situation and are not in a post unicide action situation and still the politically the Leadership of the country it still is a state of denial and deception because right now they are denying that You know they have been crimes or something and the crimes are going on as we speak actually the crimes are You know continuing actual underground. So the issue of justice I think is very very important issue and cannot be compromised And I think when you want to talk about the issue of justice also you need to bring the victims and survivors And all who are talking about here about the international crimes We're talking about you know side work crimes and cries against humanity and those all this kind of crimes is international jurisdiction So there is no amenity or any kind of immunity actually regarding them You know I have different you know kind of opinions and be calm the others And I think actually applied to them because they're talking about those who committed crime because of political violence It shouldn't be tried or something and I think that's wrong wrong. I think it's not going to be in sudan So in sudan right now if you need actually to have a stability and peaceful that actually recognized By the others and put all the people actually on the ground on on this peace process You need actually to to recognize the issue of justice and to to to embrace justice, you know about this incremental political processes, you know I myself I don't agree you know this kind of you know processes You need some sort of comprehensive, you know kind of process But actually if you see You know the approach of the regime itself the regime seemed to be very tempted for this kind of incrementally You know because they don't want to just call all the issues together and even the regional community and in the international community So that that that they think but what what I say is there is legitimate kind of you know Concern right now whether in therefore south scruldefarn or bulun I need to be you know to be recognized and to be embraced and right now I guess I want to tell you that the sudan is so said it's so divided You know if you talk about people in cartoon or other places or something We need actually some sort of process of reconciliation. We need, you know, social healing. This is very important But right now but right now if you say that, you know, we don't accept the people of that Four of them are generalized or they're on the struggle or something. Well, you know This is didn't come, you know out of blue or something because of the failure of sudan is a state Which was so centralized and actually confined to very a small minority of the people or something We need, you know, inclusive state that what we have to discuss on the national dialogue national Dialogue should that a process should bring together all the stakeholders to discuss the Fundamental issues that actually led to the failure of the sudanist state post-colonial Sudanese state issue of identity should be discussed the issue of state religion should Be discussed the issue of, you know, a structural kind of the country which is to Transform the entire country to a new country that embrace all the cities. These are the issues Which you should be discussed. It shouldn't be about elite. It shouldn't be about political, you know, party or something. It should be all inclusive, serious kind of Dialogue and a process to bring the people together. But first we need also to address The issue of war and peace. These are fundamental issues and I think even President Bashir Recognized it and in his speech or something like that, but we need all the elite, you know, To compare, you know, we ask all the elite actually from north or from different places, You know, to to understand and to recognize actually the the concern and the pain of the People of the margin is very, very important. But about the African Union, I don't think that The African Union experience, I was there. The African Union experience what in therefore in Different places actually was not a success at all. We know that the African Union is Protecting the their member of the club. We know that. I know that the African Union Has very kind of developed, you know, a document or something, but they are not Acting according to this kind of development or something. If you see what they do About the exposure of the crimes actually in that for what they did about the, you know, Protecting the people actually, you know, on the ground, nothing actually. So what I Think is the experience of the African Union is not actually was not a success at all. That's why we need, you know, some sort of, you know, consortium or some form Can bring all those who are concerned about the peace and security. Maybe we need to discuss the question of The expectation of a regional player John, do you have Well, just briefly on that, I think some of some of Observations are quite valid based on his experience. I do think that the AU has Has evolved over recent years and is not what it was a decade ago. It's intervention a decade ago, I think did leave a lot to be desired. But I also want to go back to Dr. Abdullahi's point about the rebels, Because I think that's an important part of the conversation here. And I think they really need to be tested in their avowed commitment to a peaceful Process of change. They say at every turn that we prefer a peaceful process. We're continue the fighting, but we prefer a peaceful process. Well, I think we the internationals and Sudanese need to hold them to that need To see how committed they are to that rhetoric. Now we heard Dr. Al-Khatib say everybody is invited. That's a big if. But if that really is the case, then I do hope that the rebel Movements will participate. There's a lot of reason to be skeptical. There are some of those movements that don't participate in much of anything. And I think for that they should be marginalized. But I hope that if this is the kind of process that we're hearing it is, And again, big if need to underline that, Then I really do hope that we're going to see more significant Political participation by the rebels than we have seen so far. Mejji? Yes? Are you with us? Oh, yes, I can hear you. Do you have anything to comment? Almost fell asleep. I have two points to make. The first is again about the African Union. Because I wasn't talking in general terms about the African Union's involvement in Darfur. I was talking about the process that the African Union panel on Darfur did once upon a time. So this was the limits of my comment. The second, and this is about rebel movements, I don't think we have political experience in Sudan has gone beyond the point where a gun should secure for the government or for an insurgent force automatic advantage over everybody else. And the problem with the peacemaking that is that is only centered around warring parties is that it guarantees some black bank advantage to people who have guns. And in that regard, the governments and the rebel movements play roles that are interchangeable because they move in and out of government. And this is the example of the SPLMN, for instance, which moved in and out of government. We've seen it as a rebel movement and we've seen it also as a governing force. It was part of the government. The same applies to Minimanawi. We've seen the performance of Minimanawi in government and in rebellion. So this revolving door between government and rebel should at some point be closed in favor of a popular door. Because these are not the sole political actors in the country. Thank you. I have something for you guys to talk about which is the election in 2015 and going back again to the big elephant in the room. Dr. Abdullah, you said that he would like to be in the office in 2015. And technically he should not be running for election in 2015 as per the constitution that is expiring in 2015. So what is the thing that, let's say the National Dialogue doesn't work. Let's say that it's not fulfilling all the perception or all the aspiration that we think it should. How are we going to deal with the election question? Okay. And I think elections under this regime gained a very bad reputation. Because, as I said, it is not just an election. It is a safety valve. It is someone who would like to hide behind it. And from my experience of the last election, the parties or those running against the NCB share a lot of the play. They really, they were mostly on the side of complaining and not on the side of doing positive things by really, if you say this is forged, what evidence do you have? And I remember that a very, a young lad, a kid, in one of the remotest parts of eastern Sudan, used his cell phone to document a forgery there. And he took it to the high court and the high court ruled that that was a forgery. The whole gamut of candidates and all those being have no, have had no evidence. It's just talk, no real evidence that is presentable before a court. And as such, they started to be very, very phobic about elections. And so it is not, it's not, it's not a possibility now. It is not a venue. People are talking about boycotting it if it is not like if the government does not dismantle itself. So the government is not going to dismantle itself. They are going to run if there is a kind of transitionary government or something like that. So it is going to create, it is not the kind of thing that you would, you know, elections, supposedly elections are, you know, cure all ills in all societies. But not in Sudan with the specific conditions we have. So we really need to think of an alternative way of doing it or postponing it at the time when you say confidence is being built or something like that. Well, from what we're interested that the government is not willing to postpone it. Because they need it. Because there is any wisdom in that. They need elections fast to give this guy and their party another buying time. What about the constitution? What is the political, the legal framework for that if the constitution expires in 2015? Could I have a question for both of you? What is the problem with the constitution that we have? I heard the very expert lawyers say, why don't we work on what we have? Well, that is a very good question. And I think having a constitution that is owned by the people is an important thing in any national dialogue. The current constitution is one of the best constitutions in Africa. In terms of defining the Sudanese state, in terms of human rights, fundamental human rights, there are some issues that should be added. Actually, but it is one of the best constitutions when it comes to its bill of rights as well. Maybe we need to think about the form of government in the current constitution. It speaks about a system of government. That is not clearly a federal system of government. At the same time, it is a decentralized system of government, but it doesn't speak about federalism properly. So maybe we need to maintain some parts of the constitution, especially when it comes to the definition of the Sudanese state. It recognizes that Sudan is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state, a multicultural state, and this is good. Maybe we need, especially when it comes to this part, to add that maybe some Sudanese languages should be recognized as official or national languages. This can be dealt with maybe in the first part of the constitution or in the part that deals with fundamental freedoms or unrights. Do you think the question of the constitution can be done independent from the dialogue or it should be part of the dialogue? Because I feel like it has its own urgency. A proper national dialogue process should have committees or commissions, technical committees that should be tasked with dealing with certain issues, certain problems. And I think there should be a committee that should draft or revise the current constitution so that it could include issues that are not actually addressed properly by the constitution, especially when it comes to the form of government. I participated in a series of workshops in 2012 that took me to western Sudan, to eastern Sudan, to central Sudan, and indeed in Khartoumi organized a two or three day workshop that spoke about issues that should be included in the constitution, the current constitution that should be the permanent constitution of Sudan. And one of the issues that was actually raised repeatedly by participants was the issue of federalism. People want a federal, a genuine federal of government. This will partially address the issue of government in Sudan. Thank you. Don, I have a question for you. Do you think it's necessary for President Bashir to step down for these reforms to be by approval? I think you asked the wrong panelists. Well, it was online. Well, it's a very good question, but I don't think it's a question for me, the only non-Sudinist person here to answer. But I do think that a political transition needs to be part of the conversation here. And I do think that President Bashir's future is a part of the conversation here, and it gets back to the elephant in the room. And I'm glad that you raised that elephant, because it really does exist. And what is his political future? What is his personal future? These have to be part of the dialogue, and that has to happen both within Sudan, but it's also a larger international community question because of the involvement of the ICC. And I think there's a lot of good arguments on either side of the equation. But if there is a conversation about a transition in power and about somebody other than President Bashir leading this country, then there also needs to be a conversation about where is he going to go and what does his future hold. And both of those things are very much related to each other, and you can't just talk about one without talking about the other. Thank you. Anyone has a take on that? On the constitution, I think the expert already in July 2011, that there is no question. So it's not going to expire in 2015, because it was drafted and came into force actually in 2000, in January 2005, and I think it's spared with the separation or the dependence of South Sudan. This is very important information. But about the issue of elections, I think election also should be part of the national dialogue, because from what I see is the national dialogue actually should produce some sort of trim or transitional kind of mechanism, including maybe transitional government, transitional government or of main test, actually task, I mean, I mean, you know, aims and objective actually is maybe to create the environment for new elections or something. I'm not talking about the election that to be run or to be, you know, I guess, organized by Bashir or something, because it's going to be new elections and actually it's going to lead the country and new chaos. That should be very important. About Bashir Fed, as I said, you know, it's new transition, you know, it has to be established in the country. And I don't think that, you know, this all has done and I see doing, you know, it can be part of any kind of new transition or national building process. This is, if we really need, you know, the country to heal, actually it wounds and we really want to establish some sort of national reconciliation and meaningful kind of change of the country, I think it shouldn't be part of any kind of transition. Great. We'll take Majdi. Majdi? Oh, hello. Yes. I'm not going to let you sleep today. This will be my final comment and then I'll have to leave it here. I'm afraid. Presidents in Sudan generally don't leave by themselves. I mean, this would be extraordinary if he just stepped down. And the expectation that an officer in power would step down for the general good of the nation is a bit hyped, I'm afraid. And this brings us to the point that Abdullah raised about the balance of power. And that's in essence what it's about. The balance of power right now does not allow for such a smooth transition. And the objective maybe is how to alter that balance in the favor of a more national and inclusive process has been discussed. But without this change in balance of power, this is unlikely to take place. Elections, in a sense the government, as you rightly said, is very much interested in holding elections in time in 2015 with the clear objective of reinstating the president in his seat and keeping the NCP in the saddle, which is a valid thing to do if you're a ruling party. However, the technique of boycotting elections so cheaply is also not going to get the opposition anywhere. Elections are not only there to be won. They are also there to be fought. And through fighting elections, you might win ground. And Abdullah himself has a bit of experience around this. And he has experienced immediately how this happens. But he was a man standing alone. I mean, of course, there was support around him. But there wasn't a political, a generous political organization around him. In the presence of that political organization, we might secure gains from elections by bringing people into the political stream. And you can see that also within the NCP. For instance, people like the governors of Gadarif or Abdul Hamid Musakasha in South Darfur, they did quite a bit of agitation within NCP constraints that had a popular bend to it. The notion would be how to bring more politics into the ground, and not less. Thank you. And with this, I think I have to... Thank you very much, Majdi, for joining us. We have five minutes to go. So thank you so much for being with us. Footnote here. Yes. Yeah. Majdi said that military rule was just on go like that. But there is a kind of an illusion in the Sudanese elite mind that President Abud just resigned because people were like clamoring for his... And he said, okay, these people just don't like me. I'm going to resign. And this was a lie. This is a lie. This is a 100% lie because Abud was driven by young officers. They climbed the wall of the Republican palace to tell him go. And he was insisting till the last moment, and this was recorded then at that time by Cliff Thompson, a professor at Wisconsin University, who were an eyewitness there. Another just footnote by his way of this metaphor of elephant in the room. I think Bashir belongs to the army. People just wrongly assign him to the Muslim brothers. And people still believe that the Muslim brothers are in... They are not. We have been barking the wrong tree for 25 years. The Muslim brother dissolves their movement on day one, and they lost it. Until today, and these angry guys are trying to restore it. So I have two metaphors here. There is an elephant of the room that is the army, that we need really to address. And when we address not Bashir, when we address the armed forces as such, I think Bashir's position would be clarified. We should actually address that point during the challenges because one of the requirements for protecting the reforms is having a professional army. To what extent do we have a professional army in Sudan? And to what extent the government is willing to have a professional army? And what about those rebels? How are you going to accommodate them? It is a professional army, but an army that God disassociated from the nation, just like in Algeria, just like in Egypt, just like in Syria. This is an army that has a nation, and not a nation that has an army. And 70% of the budget goes where? And who is going to guard and to manage and to protect the 70% of the budget? Since we are wrapping up, I would like to thank you all for joining us. And John, please. Well, let me thank you as well for being a wonderful host and thank our other panelists and thank our other people who were kind enough to join us from around the world and stay up late on Skype. And also to thank some people who you don't see on the screen here, which is all the people who helped to make this production a reality. They put a lot of work into this over the last few weeks that I've seen. This is the first time we've ever done anything like this at USIP. And I think it seems like it's gone very well. I look forward to watching it myself and I think we'll probably be doing more of it. Particularly Arif Omer, who's here behind the camera, Sudanese fellow who we have here, who it was his idea to do this several months ago, and he has made this a reality. And so we thank him very much for this. And I think it's been a very fulfilling conversation. I hope it's the first of many on these really important national dialogue conversations. And I hope we're going to see a genuine participatory, inclusive national dialogue in Sudan in the near future. Inshallah. Thank you. Thank you everybody.