Berlin Between the German Wall and the Sudanese Conference   Captain Mohamed Hassan Al-Tahir

Date: April 15, 2026

When we reflect on history, we find that the Berlin Wall was not merely a concrete structure dividing two halves of a city, but a stark symbol of exclusion and division. Millions of Germans were deprived of natural contact with their families, and the doors of freedom and choice were shut before them.

The wall embodied a policy of imposing reality by force, far from the will of the people, until it fell in 1989 under the pressure of popular will that rejected isolation and marginalization.

Today, as we stand before the Berlin Humanitarian Conference on Sudan scheduled for April 15, 2026, a question arises—perhaps related to the symbolism of the place:

– Does history repeat itself in a different form?

The conference, organized by Germany, France, and Britain in coordination with the African Union, the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League, and IGAD, faces widespread rejection from Sudanese political and civil forces (according to social media and media outlets). They see it as a repetition of exclusionary and selective approaches, just as the wall symbolized division. The parallels between the conference today and the wall yesterday can be seen in the following points:

Exclusion and Selectivity:

– Just as the wall separated Germans, the conference separates Sudanese forces that ought to unite under extraordinary circumstances—circumstances in which people feel ashamed to declare their belonging to Sudan because of the disgrace and betrayal inflicted by our own hands.

Lack of Transparency:

– The wall was managed through top-down decisions that did not reflect the people’s will. The conference is managed by external agendas without consultation with Sudanese stakeholders, as shown by the foreign states and organizations that called for it. This reflects a disregard for the legacy of Sudan’s founding fathers, who championed “Sudan for the Sudanese” and balanced democracy, mediating between Faisal and Nasser while invoking “Nasser, the truth with truth, and the guide to the straight path.”

Imposing Reality:

– The wall imposed a political and security reality by force. The conference, according to reports, seeks to merge humanitarian and political tracks in line with the vision of one party, ignoring national balance.

External Intervention:

– Just as the wall reflected international conflict, the conference is accused of being a tool of foreign intervention that strips the process of national ownership.

Position of Sudanese Forces:

Political and civil forces signing the press statement confirmed their rejection of the conference, noting:

– The humanitarian file is being exploited as a political pressure tool instead of a neutral response to citizens’ needs.

– Forming committees and structures without Sudanese consensus threatens to exclude national forces and undermine sovereignty.

– Peace and stability cannot be achieved except through a comprehensive national process based on justice, balance, and genuine partnership among all Sudanese.

Conclusion

Just as the Berlin Wall fell by the will of the people, any attempt to build a new “political wall” around Sudan through exclusionary conferences will face the same fate—unless reason is lost, Sudan is abandoned, and its heritage erased after the passing of its elders. I hope Sudan’s legacy, which has long been a mark of pride among nations thanks to leaders like Mohamed Ahmed Al-Mahjoub, will not be squandered. He made Sudan a destination for resolving disputes among Arab countries, declaring “All Arab lands are my homeland, and all Arabs are my brothers.”

In the end, peoples do not accept that their affairs be managed through top-down decisions or external arrangements—something Marx recognized before ideologies did. “He who accepts humiliation finds humiliation easy; what pain can a dead man feel from a wound?”

Sudan, with its history and components, does not need closed conferences that impose a distorted reality. It needs a purely national process that preserves the capital left by the ancestors and expresses the will of all its sons. Our forefathers entrusted us with the homeland, the precious soil, and the wealth. Let us stay far from old and new walls. Do we learn the lesson, hold firmly to the cause, and make “Sudan for the Sudanese” both slogan and decision? For Sudan has no place in the conscience of the world except in the hearts of its own people. Do not lose the homeland, lest you lose the conscience—and then regret will be of no use. On that day, the oppressor will bite his hands and say, “I wish I had prepared for my life.” As the proverb goes: “Buraqish brought ruin upon herself.”