The Quartet Mechanism: Its Constituent States and How to Gain Its Acceptance Among Sudanese Citizens

By Dr. Hassan Hameida

KIEL, GERMANY: According to the general definition of the Quartet Mechanism, it comprises the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States, and facilitates global peace negotiations.

With regard to the war in Sudan, the Quartet Mechanism includes the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. Its objective is to coordinate efforts to end the ongoing war.

Considering the composition of this Quartet Mechanism, which is supposed to contribute to finding a just solution to the war in Sudan, we find a clear exclusion of Sudanese citizens and their participation in its fundamental formation.

This exclusion hinders the adoption of steps and decisions aimed at ending a war that has squandered Sudan’s material and human resources.

The following are some key points that must be reconsidered and reformulated to restructure this mechanism and broaden its neutral participation through consultation with Sudanese citizens inside and outside Sudan. It should be a balanced mechanism for ending the war, amended and developed with the participation of qualified Sudanese academics specializing in politics and lawmaking.

First – Participating States: States that finance and fuel wars cannot be part of a mechanism whose primary and ultimate goal is to end the war in Sudan. Peace cannot be realistic and practical in light of their participation.

Second – Participation of Arab States: Despite Arab efforts to end the war in Sudan, this is currently limited to the role of Saudi Arabia as an active mediator. This participation is insufficient and should be broadened. Another suggestion: A neutral Arab state should be added, based on the existing regional context. Here, Arab countries that have historical ties with Sudan, such as Qatar and Kuwait, can be involved in the mechanism to end the war in Sudan.

Thirdly – The Participation of African States: Egypt’s participation is undeniable, whether in accepting Sudanese refugees or otherwise; however, other African states should also participate to amplify the African voice. This is because the issue here concerns not only Sudan’s security but also the security of the heart of the African continent and the surrounding region. Egypt’s support for Sudan is undeniable and cannot be overlooked in this context.

Other countries have also played an active role in expressing their views on the Sudanese war, such as Algeria, which presented courageous and fair arguments before the United Nations General Assembly during its periodic sessions regarding the ongoing violations of the rights of Sudanese citizens, both inside and outside Sudan. Other African states with knowledge of the events, such as Algeria, South Africa, or Senegal, could be added as active participants in ending the war.

Fourth – The Participation of Asian States: In addition to the United States’ participation, Russia, as a country of considerable weight and influence, and as evidenced by its veto power in the United Nations, should have been a key player in this mechanism.

Regardless of the difficulty of this step given the ongoing war in Europe, we will leave this matter for now. However, the participation of other influential countries is essential to restoring balance to the regional situation in East and Central Africa. China, India, and Indonesia could be involved in the revised mechanism.

This is crucial to shortening this brutal war through effective decisions that restore Sudan’s sovereignty and dignity, preserve its unity and cohesion within a balanced democratic framework, and ultimately satisfy the Sudanese people after the war.

Fifth – Participation of Observer States: The peace mechanism in a country like Sudan cannot remain stalled since April 15, 2023, without concrete steps being taken and a final document being drafted to implement the end of the war.

This is a country where human rights are violated daily through impoverishment, hunger, displacement, and fleeing the flames of war, through humiliation, rape, abduction, torture, murder, and mutilation of corpses. This necessitates close monitoring of the mechanism’s work. Countries friendly to and supportive of Sudan could be involved in this close monitoring. Examples include Germany, Spain, Japan, and South Korea. The four countries mentioned here have a long history of building and developing modern Sudan after its independence, and of many well-thought-out and successful projects in various fields.

In short: To broaden the scope and amend the proposed mechanism, the following points must be addressed:

– Non participation of states that finance and fuel wars

– Arab participation: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait

– African participation: Egypt, Algeria, South Africa, or Senegal

– Asian participation: China, India, and Indonesia

– Monitoring the mechanism: Germany, Spain, Japan, and South Korea

This means expanding the scope and monitoring of this mechanism to include 12 participating countries and four observer countries, if the crisis truly has local and regional significance.

This is a precaution against unilateral decision-making and a safeguard against stifling the nascent Sudanese state, which aspires to democracy and social justice.

The outcome should not be a prolonged war, the depletion of ordinary Sudanese soldiers, and the slow killing of innocent civilians, all for the sake of controlling Sudan’s promising lands, dividing it into failed states, extending foreign influence, seizing its wealth and resources by force, and dominating it through division – a “divide and rule/ divide and conquer” strategy.

Email: hassan_humeida@yahoo.de