Sudan’s Founding Alliance (TASIS) has renewed its criticism of the Sudan peace mechanism, citing concerns over political consultations and the participation of figures linked to former ruling groups.
The alliance says it has suspended communication with the international Five-Party Mechanism.
TASIS spokesperson Ahmed Tugod Lisan explained the decision during an interview with the Sudanese programme Ma Azzam on Saturday.
He said the alliance disagreed with how peace talks were being organised.
He also raised concerns about the involvement of individuals linked to Islamist political groups.
The dispute comes as international mediators continue efforts to end Sudan’s war.
Why is TASIS criticising the Sudan peace mechanism?
TASIS believes the peace process should follow a clear order.
First, negotiations should focus on ending the fighting and addressing the humanitarian crisis.
After that, political groups can discuss Sudan’s future government.
However, the alliance argues that the current process has moved away from this approach.
Lisan also criticised the participation of figures linked to Sudan’s former ruling establishment.
TASIS has previously opposed the involvement of individuals associated with the National Congress Party and Islamic Movement.
The alliance believes their participation could weaken efforts to establish civilian rule.
However, these concerns reflect TASIS’s position. They do not establish wrongdoing by the international mediators.
What is the Five-Party Mechanism?
The Sudan peace mechanism brings together five international and regional organisations.
These are the African Union, United Nations, European Union, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and Arab League.
Together, they support discussions between Sudanese political and civilian groups.
Their goal is to help create a framework for ending the war.
They also aim to support Sudan’s return to civilian government.
However, political disagreements have made progress difficult.
Different groups have competing views about who should participate in the talks.
They also disagree over how negotiations should proceed.
As a result, reaching a common position remains challenging.
Previous disagreements over Sudan peace talks
The latest criticism follows earlier disagreements between TASIS and international mediators.
In July, the alliance declined to attend consultations planned in Addis Ababa.
At the time, TASIS questioned how participating groups had been selected.
It also raised concerns about the structure of the talks.
However, there were signs of progress in August.
TASIS announced that the Five-Party Mechanism had responded to its concerns.
According to the alliance, the mechanism agreed to review arrangements for the first stage of consultations.
TASIS then expressed willingness to continue discussions with international mediators.
Nevertheless, the latest remarks suggest that important disagreements remain unresolved.
It is unclear whether further meetings took place before the suspension described by Lisan.
Sudan’s political divisions complicate peace efforts
Sudan’s ongoing war has created a severe humanitarian crisis.
It has also deepened disagreements over the country’s political future.
International mediators have struggled to bring different groups into a shared peace process.
TASIS argues that any agreement must address the causes of Sudan’s repeated conflicts.
The alliance supports a civilian political system that prevents the return of military-dominated rule.
Meanwhile, the authorities in Port Sudan hold a different position.
They oppose political arrangements that would recognise the RSF and its allied governing structures.
These disagreements continue to complicate peace efforts.
What happens next in Sudan’s peace process?
The latest dispute raises questions about the future of the Sudan peace mechanism.
For TASIS, the order of negotiations remains a major concern.
The alliance also wants greater clarity over which political groups can participate.
Meanwhile, international mediators continue working to bring Sudanese parties together.
However, the Five-Party Mechanism has not publicly responded to Lisan’s latest remarks.
It is also unclear whether new meetings will address the alliance’s objections.
Despite these challenges, diplomatic efforts to end the war continue.
A lasting agreement will need to address Sudan’s humanitarian emergency and political divisions.
For now, the disagreement highlights the difficulties facing international peace efforts.