Youth Network Calls for Independent Civil Oversight in Sudan War-Ending Negotiations

Amsterdam: October 15, 2026: Radio Dabanga – The Youth Network for Civil Monitoring has released a policy paper titled “Towards a New Civil Engineering for Peace Processes: Integrating Independent Civil Oversight into Sudan’s War-Ending Negotiations and Discussions,” issued by the network’s advocacy unit. The paper argues that Sudanese peace processes share a single structural flaw: the absence of an independent civil oversight mechanism to monitor, verify, and communicate with the public from the early stages of the political process. To bridge this gap, it proposes the establishment of a “Joint Civil Engagement Window.” The paper points out that preparations for political processes and negotiations to end the war in Sudan are entering a phase characterized by cumulative structural twists and imbalances. Since the launch of the Jeddah Platform in May 2023, passing through talks and meetings in Geneva, Manama, Cairo, and others, to the exploratory consultations sponsored by the Five-Member Mechanism in June 2026 in Addis Ababa, a succession of international and regional platforms and initiatives have aimed at achieving a ceasefire and opening a political path to end the war. On April 15, 2026, the war entered its fourth year since erupting, with military confrontations between the Sudanese Armed Forces, the Rapid Support Forces, and fighting factions transforming into a comprehensive national crisis that has reshaped the state, society, and economy. Its impact has extended regionally amid a catastrophic humanitarian cost, while multiple mediations have failed to reach a sustainable truce due to limited institutional arrangements for involving local stakeholders. Previous Milestones The paper provides a summary of major previous milestones and the location of the oversight gap in each: the Jeddah platform resulted in a declaration to protect civilians without an independent verification mechanism; the Manama meetings remained distant from any civil presence, occurring in closed rooms; while systematic channels to inform the public about outcomes were absent from Geneva discussions and the Cairo conference. Furthermore, communication in the Quad and Five-Member Mechanism initiatives was limited to the political elite without a broad grassroots base. Although the Sudan conference in Berlin and subsequent Addis Ababa consultations provided a platform for civil actors who issued a joint call to end the war and stipulated monitoring and verification mechanisms, the seat for civilians remained limited, and the public was not informed of the reality of the positions. Proposal for Establishing a Mechanism The paper warns against repeating the approach of lacking oversight mechanisms and poor stakeholder communication, which reproduces cycles of institutional failure and weak transparency, making it easier for conflict parties to exploit gaps. It proposes establishing a “Joint Civil Engagement Window” as an independent oversight mechanism that brings together national, regional, and international components. The national component would handle field monitoring and provide local context knowledge; the regional component would offer technical expertise and framework alignment; while the international component would provide political support and guarantees. This follows the principle of complementarity, without the mechanism replacing mediators or formal verification bodies. The paper proposes an integrated structure for the mechanism, including a joint coordination body to direct work and manage relations with mediators, a field and open-source monitoring unit to gather and verify information using precise methodology, an analysis and reporting unit for decision-makers, and a communication unit to enlighten the public to fill the misinformation void, alongside strict controls to ensure impartiality and independence. The mechanism's outputs would range from periodic and urgent reports to mediator briefings and communication products for the public. The paper reviews the capabilities of the Youth Network for Civil Monitoring and its readiness to contribute its accumulated expertise in field monitoring, issuing dozens of periodic and specialized reports, continuous interaction with international and regional mechanisms such as the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, and work within independent civil frameworks. It also cites comparative international experiences in involving civil society in peace processes, such as the Ceasefire Monitoring Committee in Nepal, the tripartite model in Colombia, civilian observers in Mindanao in the Philippines, and the broad Peace Committee networks in South Africa in 1991, which formed a safety net that maintained momentum during negotiation stalemates. Challenges and Risks The paper acknowledges challenges and risks including accusations of treason, security risks for observers, political targeting, mutual campaigns of skepticism, resistance from certain political forces, and misinformation, proposing clear strategies to manage these through strict adherence to neutrality, the application of standardized documentation criteria, the provision of safety protocols, and anticipating the information vacuum with accurate information. The paper concludes with recommendations addressed to the Five-Member Mechanism, the Quad, and other relevant frameworks and international and regional organizations tasked with facilitation. It calls for incorporating an independent civil oversight mechanism as an essential element in the design of the next political process, allocating a mixed civil engagement window, and providing political, material, and technical support for the mechanism, emphasizing that the sustainability of peace depends on the quality of the political process’s design, its institutions, and its ability to connect with affected communities.