The ongoing conflict in Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), controlled by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo ‘Hemedti,’ has thrown the country into chaos since April 2023. As the war ravages the nation, displacing millions and pushing Sudan into the largest humanitarian crisis globally, international efforts to mediate peace have largely fallen flat. Among these efforts, US-backed negotiations have faced significant criticism, raising concerns about Washington’s approach and whether its policies are prolonging the conflict instead of fostering peace.
The conflict between the SAF and RSF has deep historical roots, linked to political rivalries, ethnic divisions, and Sudan’s contentious transition to civilian rule. The RSF, formed in 2013 from the notorious Janjaweed militias involved in the Darfur conflict, became a semi-autonomous force that answered directly to Sudan’s government. Over time, the contradictions between the SAF and RSF-particularly over the role of the RSF in the future national army-exacerbated tensions, leading to a violent confrontation between the two generals, al-Burhan and Hemedti. These internal divisions have been the main driver of the current war, a brutal conflict that has claimed countless civilian lives and displaced 12 million people.
Yet, despite these complexities, US mediation efforts have tended to oversimplify the situation, viewing it as a mere power struggle between two military factions rather than addressing the broader ethnopolitical and regional dynamics at play. This reductionist approach has hindered the development of effective peace plans.
The latest round of US-backed peace talks, held in Geneva and organized by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, was intended to address the humanitarian crisis and establish a ceasefire. Yet these talks collapsed, largely due to the absence of the Sudanese Armed Forces. The SAF refused to participate, citing various issues with the US delegation’s approach to the conflict and the involvement of external actors like the UAE, which the SAF accuses of backing the RSF.
This diplomatic deadlock raises critical questions about the US’s role in the peace process. By pushing for talks that excluded one of the primary warring factions, Washington undermined the possibility of a meaningful resolution. US efforts have focused heavily on including the RSF in negotiations, despite evidence of its involvement in serious human rights violations, including attacks on civilians, forced recruitment, and widespread sexual violence.
The Jeddah Declaration, signed in May 2023, emphasized the protection of civilians and the need for humanitarian aid. However, the SAF criticized the US for failing to push the RSF to comply with this agreement. According to an Amnesty International report, the RSF and allied militias have been responsible for a large proportion of civilian casualties, further complicating peace efforts. The SAF’s refusal to participate in the Geneva talks is a reflection of its distrust in US mediation, believing that Washington is biased in favor of the RSF.
A key point of contention between the SAF and the US is the involvement of the UAE in the Geneva peace talks. The SAF has accused the UAE of financially and militarily supporting the RSF, allegedly to protect its own strategic and economic interests in Sudan. According to reports, the UAE has provided significant resources to the RSF, including humanitarian aid to RSF-controlled areas, logistical support, and financial backing.
The SAF views the UAE’s involvement as a threat to Sudan’s sovereignty, citing a complaint filed to the United Nations accusing the UAE of violating international law and interfering in Sudan’s internal affairs. By allowing the UAE to play a prominent role in the peace process, the US has further alienated the SAF and deepened the political divide between the two sides.
While the UAE’s support for the RSF has been criticized by international observers, including the United Nations, Washington has continued to push for the UAE’s involvement in the negotiations. This decision has not only strained relations with the SAF but has also raised questions about the US’s impartiality in the peace process. The failure to address the UAE’s role in prolonging the conflict has been a major stumbling block in the peace talks.
One of the most significant criticisms of US mediation efforts is its tendency to oversimplify the conflict, reducing it to a binary struggle between the SAF and RSF. While power struggles between military leaders are undoubtedly central to the crisis, the US’s approach fails to consider the ethnopolitical complexities and regional dynamics that fuel the violence.
Sudan is a country with deep ethnic and regional divisions, many of which have been exacerbated by decades of conflict and political marginalization. The Darfur region, for instance, has been a hotspot for violence, with RSF forces accused of committing atrocities against marginalized ethnic groups. The conflict is not just a fight between two generals-it is a multifaceted crisis involving local grievances, ethnic rivalries, and economic interests that cannot be solved through military or political power-sharing agreements alone.
By viewing the conflict through a narrow lens, the US has hindered the development of a comprehensive peace plan that addresses the root causes of the violence. A more nuanced approach would involve broader regional engagement and an understanding of the socio-political landscape that fuels conflict.
For General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the head of the SAF and the de-facto leader of Sudan, agreeing to the US-mediated peace talks would have posed a significant risk. Participating in the Geneva talks on equal footing with the RSF would have undermined his constitutional legitimacy as the leader of Sudan’s transitional government. By equating the SAF with the RSF-a force that has launched a rebellion against the government-al-Burhan would have effectively acknowledged the RSF as a legitimate political actor.
Such a move could have dire consequences for Sudan’s political future. In the past, rebel leaders like John Garang of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and Minni Minnawi of the Sudan Liberation Army were integrated into Sudan’s political system through negotiated settlements. If al-Burhan were to engage with Hemedti in a similar manner, it could signal a shift towards recognizing the RSF as a political entity, which would reshape Sudan’s political landscape and potentially pave the way for further fragmentation of the state.
The SAF, wary of such an outcome, has been steadfast in its refusal to engage with the RSF as a legitimate political actor. Washington’s insistence on including the RSF in the negotiations has only deepened the divide and stalled the peace process.
The US’s approach to mediating peace in Sudan has been marred by a one-sided vision that fails to address the complexity of the conflict. By pushing for talks that prioritize the RSF, ignoring the role of external actors like the UAE in fueling the conflict, and oversimplifying the root causes of the violence, Washington has inadvertently prolonged the war.
A more balanced approach, one that includes the perspectives of both the SAF and RSF while addressing the underlying ethnopolitical and regional dynamics, is essential for achieving a lasting peace. Until the US recognizes the limitations of its current strategy and adjusts its policies to better reflect the realities on the ground, the prospects for peace in Sudan will remain dim. As the humanitarian crisis deepens and millions continue to suffer, the need for a new, more comprehensive approach to peace cannot be overstated.
Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel
The post US mediation efforts in Sudan conflict prolong humanitarian crisis appeared first on BLiTZ.
