Sometimes an imperfect deal is better than no deal at all. On Sunday, the Sudanese Armed Forces rejected an international ceasefire proposal that would have halted further bloodshed in their war-torn country. However, this disappointing news was quickly followed by Monday’s announcement that the SAF’s main rival – the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces – had called a unilateral three-month truce. For Sudan’s long-suffering civilians, any respite is better than none.
The civil war, which began in April 2023, has killed tens of thousands and displaced over 14 million people. More than half Sudan's population face hunger and the country has been split between the army and the RSF. Both sides are to blame for the humanitarian crisis in the country
The UN Emergency Relief co-ordinator Tom Fletcher recently visited the country and warned that “the world has been painfully inactive in Sudan so far”; the time to get active is now. This week Reem Al Hashimy, UAE Minister of State for International Co-operation, said the Emirates – one of the Quad countries involved in working towards a peace deal – remains “gravely concerned by the conduct of both warring parties whose escalating military actions and continued refusal to facilitate humanitarian access are driving Sudan further into collapse”.
Getting more aid to Sudan’s beleaguered population is critical to staving off that collapse. In a recorded video address, RSF commander Gen Mohamed Dagalo said his forces were committed to facilitating humanitarian operations. If that is the case, the UN and other international aid agencies should take the RSF at their word and act immediately to get supplies into Sudan. This is not only to save lives but to make it harder for the RSF or any of its factions to go back on this commitment.
Although any lull in the fighting would be good news, there are many caveats. There is near-zero trust between the RSF and the army, and previous truces have broken down. In addition, maximalist positions are not helping; SAF leader Gen Abdel Fattah Al Burhan has said that “as long as the rebels exist, there will be no peace”. As this paper has argued before, there are no real winners to be had in this war and wishing one’s opponents away instead of engaging in talks only prolongs Sudan’s agony.
However, the involvement of the Quad group – the US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt – in bringing about this RSF truce shows that international pressure produce results. Wider and more co-ordinated diplomatic pressure could do even better.
Speaking in Abu Dhabi yesterday, Massad Boulos, senior adviser to US President Donald Trump on Africa, said a comprehensive deal to end the war would soon be announced. Speaking alongside him was Dr Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to President Sheikh Mohamed, who said the conflict needed to end “unconditionally today”. Ending the fighting would be important not only for Sudan’s people but for the country’s neighbours, too, many of whom are hosting thousands of displaced Sudanese.
This deadly power struggle between two military camps, supported by extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood and fuelled by arms smugglers and proxies, offers nothing to the Sudanese people. The country cannot live under a military dictatorship, and there remains a strong Sudanese civil society at home and abroad that can take the nation in a better direction. It is a measure of how far Sudan has fallen that a one-sided, temporary ceasefire has attracted such attention, but the sooner all the guns fall silent, the better.
