Air Route

Al-Jarida this morning: This step may contribute to shifting part of the management of the humanitarian file from the central government's circle of control to arrangements imposed by field realities on the ground.Spectra: Sabah Mohammed Al-Hassan - Air Route. First Spectrum: A new season will pass after you that we do not know, one that even our windows might be ignorant of!! The United States of America has submitted a request to the UN Security Council to enable aid workers to reach the Darfur region by air immediately, in light of the restrictions imposed on movement and the resulting obstruction of the humanitarian response. The US Representative to the UN for Management and Reform, Jeffrey Bartos, stated during a Security Council session the day before yesterday that current movement restrictions hinder the access of humanitarian workers to Darfur, noting that they are forced to spend days traveling by land to reach the region. Bartos explained that providing air access would reduce travel time from days to hours, in addition to enabling humanitarian organizations to carry out medical evacuations for their staff, thereby contributing to strengthening their field presence and expanding their capacity to respond to humanitarian needs. The US official emphasized his call for Sudanese authorities to cooperate in this area. However, the American request—which was presented to the Security Council and not the Sudanese authorities—means that there is international concern that restrictions on movement are hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians in Darfur. This may lead to further international pressure or initiatives regarding the humanitarian situation in Sudan. America seems to be gathering these elements into a discourse within the framework of the Security Council, seeking to solidify the idea that the humanitarian crisis has become an urgent priority that may require exceptional measures. This could affect how Council members view any upcoming decisions or initiatives regarding Sudan, especially those that America is waiting for the Council to decide upon. If current procedures do not allow aid to arrive at the required speed, the international community may need additional arrangements or greater pressure to ensure humanitarian access. However, reading between the lines of the news reveals that the step may contribute to shifting part of the management of the humanitarian file from the central government's circle of control alone to arrangements imposed by field realities within the region. That is, opening an air route to Darfur could practically lead to increasing the importance of the consent of the party in control on the ground, and giving it an opportunity to portray itself as a partner in humanitarian operations. If a direct air route to Darfur is proposed, any party that announces its support for it will try to benefit politically from it. From this angle, it can be said that the Rapid Support Forces might find it in their interest to welcome such a proposal if it would lead to showing themselves to the international community as a party cooperating with aid access. This goes beyond just reducing the role assigned to the central government in managing access to the region; it grants the Rapid Support Forces other advantages, even at the negotiating table or in the process of agreeing on a truce. The issue is not about planes or aid, but about who holds the right to approval, supervision, and representation in Darfur. After this step, it is undoubtedly not the central authority in Port Sudan alone, but the reality on the ground forces engagement with the forces currently in control. The conflict is no longer just about military control on the ground, but also about who has the ability to deal with the international community and manage humanitarian files. Therefore, any humanitarian mechanism established outside the traditional channels of the state could be interpreted politically as giving the party in control on the ground greater weight in practical reality, even if it is not officially recognized as an authority or government. If Al-Burhan has announced his approval of a humanitarian truce, he will undoubtedly agree to facilitate aid access. However, the United States' continued demand for direct air access to Darfur and the easing of administrative restrictions can be interpreted to mean that Washington does not consider existing pledges sufficient, neither to guarantee the truce nor for the delivery of aid at the required speed. So, is reducing reliance on Port Sudan authorities as a channel, and dealing with Darfur as a humanitarian operations zone relatively independent of the center, a pursuit to establish access mechanisms that bypass the ruling authorities? And if that happens, what next? Will the Port Sudan authority lose control over the arena of conflict, especially since the war is now confined to the region?! Final Spectrum: #No_To_War. Al-Harith Idris revealed to the Security Council the government's position and its vision for ending the war, which he said would end with the 'end of the externally supported rebellion,' considering that disarming the 'Rapid Support' forces, demobilizing their elements, and reintegrating them represents a basic condition for achieving peace. That is why we said yesterday that the White House does not consider Al-Burhan's letter a serious step toward peace, which is what prompted the US administration to continue its procedures.