- Sudan has been mired in a devastating 16-month conflict between the national army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia, leaving 10 million civilians trapped in the crossfire. The brutal war has ravaged the country, causing widespread human suffering and displacement. In a bid to end the bloodshed, the United States of America recently mediated peace talks in Switzerland, bringing together representatives from both sides. However, in a surprising turn of events, the RSF militia sent a delegation to the talks but ultimately failed to officially participate. Also, the Sudanese Armed Forces refused to attend altogether.
The army had said it would boycott the talks several days before the meeting, but RSF delegates went to Switzerland and at the last minute, stayed away. Reports reveal that the group has not publicly stated its reason for withdrawing.
The army’s refusal to attend the ceasefire talks has dashed hopes of a peaceful resolution, citing the RSF’s failure to implement key provisions of the Jeddah Declaration agreed upon in Saudi Arabia last year. Specifically, the army pointed to the RSF’s non-compliance with critical conditions, including the withdrawal of its fighters from civilian homes and public facilities. This move by the army suggests a deep-seated mistrust of the RSF’s commitment to peace and raises questions about the paramilitary group’s willingness to compromise.
From the look of things, it appears that RSF’s failure to meet these conditions may indicate a lack of control over its fighters or a deliberate strategy to maintain a military presence in strategic locations.
Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the Sudanese armed forces chief stated that “military operations will not stop without the withdrawal of every last militiaman from the cities and villages they have plundered and colonised,”
However, on its part, the RSF has frequently denied it has committed abuses against civilians and looting.
What transpired in the meeting?
The peace talks, though, have hit a snag, with parties absent from the negotiating table, but US Special Envoy Tom Perriello emphasized that direct mediation requires the presence of both parties. Reports also revealed that the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, urged General Abdel-Fattah Burhan, Sudan’s de-facto ruler, to join the talks, but to no avail. The absence of the SAF delegation raises questions about the commitment of the Sudanese government to the peace process. On the D-day, the delegates from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the African Union and the United Nations were present. The army however also said it objected to the presence of the UAE as an observer. The UAE has been indicted for arming the RSF. The army’s objections to the presence of the UAE as an observer and the Jeddah Declaration’s unmet conditions suggest a distrust of the RSF and the international community. The UAE’s involvement, despite accusations of arming the RSF, further complicates the situation.
Meanwhile on social media micro-tweeting platform, X, Mohanad Elbalal, co-founder of Khartoum Kitchen Aid, criticized the US for setting “impossible conditions”.
“The US set a number of impossible conditions for the Sudanese authorities, foremost of these they refused to invite the Sudanese Government to the talks extending the invitation only to the Sudanese Army while ironically inviting the UAE Government that sponsors the RSF militia, to the talks!”. This perspective highlights the complexities of international mediation and the need for inclusive representation.
But despite the setbacks, Tom Perriello claims he remains hopeful, emphasizing the importance of addressing humanitarian needs and civilian protection. However, the failure of previous peace talks in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain casts a shadow over the current negotiations. Before the talks, and before the RSF pulled out, the former United Nations Chief Coordinator for Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, said the mood among the delegates was “pretty glum”.
“I don’t think the two belligerents are interested in talking to each other. One of them is not here already and not much is expected.”
The glum mood among delegates and the absence of one party as stated by the former United Nations Chief Coordinator for Sudan do not bode well for a peaceful resolution. The situation demands a subtle understanding of the complex web of interests, alliances, and historical grievances driving the conflict.
External influence
Sudanese Vice President Malik Agar in an interview with Leila Molana-Allen of PBS NewsHour, while defending the refusal to participate in the peace talks, discussed extensively how RSF has been an instrument and tool for external actors. He said: “Any leader in Sudan who can go into negotiations with the RSF is committing a political suicide. RSF is an instrument, is a tool for the UAE and others. Hemedti has no control of the forces here. How do you kill people? How do you rape girls and women and everybody and destroy the infrastructure and you want to rule? Then you have no control of these forces.”
Human rights groups have documented evidence of weapons being supplied to the RSF by the UAE, Russia and Turkey, among others, smuggled into RSF territory via neighboring Chad. The United States is a leading arms seller to the UAE. The interview revealed.
Speaking on the effects of the weapons, Agar said the weapons have great effect, because they are new weapons. “They are not used. Sudanese army, they never had such weapons. These militia are being supported by the UAE — I mean, let me put it bluntly, by the UAE and others.”
His interview also sheds light on the complexities of international involvement in Sudan’s conflict. In part of his defence of the refusal to participate in peace talks, he cited the international community’s economic interests in Sudan, including gold mining and agricultural lands.
“But the UAE has a lot of economical interests in Sudan. One of them — number one of them is gold mining in Sudan. They wanted some sort of agricultural lands in Sudan. They had also an interest of having an area on the Red Sea for their own interests. So, we believe there is other interest from other countries also. So it is a complex situation.”
He accuses the US of hypocrisy, supplying weapons to the UAE while advocating for democracy and human rights. “One thing that the U.S. government can do is, one, to stop supplying the UAE. They know, the Americans, they know that weapons are being used in Sudan. There is no doubt about that, because the evidence are there. So then, for them also, they have to decide what do — do they want a war in Sudan to continue or do they want — as they talk about democracy and human rights, do they want to preserve the human rights of the Sudanese? And you cannot bring democracy in the middle of the guns. And you cannot bring democracy when you are using militias.”
Agar’s statements suggest that the US’s efforts in peace talks are merely political posturing ahead of elections. He criticizes the US envoy’s lack of engagement, never visiting Sudan and instead relying on talks with neighboring countries.
According to Agar, the US administration has failed to meaningfully engage with Sudan, relying on an unelected envoy who has never visited the country (Sudan). Instead, they have bypassed Sudanese leaders and held talks with neighboring countries like Egypt and Kenya. Tom Perriello, the said Special Envoy to Sudan, has never set foot in Sudan, and a planned visit was cancelled citing security concerns. This patchy engagement appears to be undermining the US’ credibility in facilitating a peaceful resolution.
Also, the absence of civil political leaders from peace talks further complicates the situation. Agar’s response to whether the Sudanese armed forces intend to relinquish power to a democratically elected leader after the war is unclear, leaving doubts about the military’s willingness to surrender control.
Genesis of the crisis
The warring parties, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Abdel-Fattah Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo “Hemedti”, had a shaky agreement to share power after President Omar al-Bashir was removed in 2021. However, their differences over combining their forces eventually led to an all-out war. The fighting started in the capital, Khartoum, and spread to other areas sometime in April last year, 2023.
The war has caused immense suffering. Both sides have been accused of harming civilians, shelling homes, and blocking aid. According to the International Organisation for Migration, the numbers are devastating: tens of thousands killed, over 10 million displaced, and 2.3 million refugees fleeing the country.
The situation is critical as UN officials warn that Sudan is on the brink of disaster, with more thousands of lives at risk from hunger, disease, floods, and violence if the fighting continues. The situation remains heartbreaking and demands urgent attention and action to prevent further tragedy.
Educator, writer and legal researcher at Alafarika for Studies and Consultancy.