As media outlets announced the commencement of talks between the delegations of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, facilitated by Saudi-US sponsorship, the two warring factions went on with their battles in the Sudanese capital Khartoum, now in the grip of the fourth week of the brutal conflict.
The city has been subjected to extensive devastation, as though the delegations dispatched to Jeddah to negotiate a truce were completely detached from the situation on the ground.
But the deliberations in Jeddah were not faring much better than the conditions on the battlefield, with the SAF and RSF delegations standing poles apart on the negotiating agenda.
The Saudi Foreign Ministry said the talks between the warring parties would continue until a sustainable ceasefire was attained. The US and Saudi Arabia have jointly implored both parties to observe the ceasefire, foster a constructive environment for the ongoing discussions, uphold their obligations towards the Sudanese people, and participate earnestly in the deliberations.
The overarching objective is to bring about an end to the hostilities, alleviate the hardships and tribulations of the Sudanese people, facilitate the unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance to the affected regions, and ultimately to hold comprehensive negotiations that involve all parties in Sudan.
The Jeddah negotiations have been met with a favourable response from various quarters within and outside Sudan, as there is a fervent desire to extinguish the flames of war that have raged relentlessly in the country.
The Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD), which encompasses eight nations in East Africa including Sudan, has called upon the conflicting parties to seize the opportunity presented by the talks in Jeddah. The civilian signatories to the Sudanese Framework Agreement have also urged an end to the conflict.
However, progress on the negotiations in Jeddah may remain stymied without the exertion of significant and tangible pressure on the warring factions to promptly implement a ceasefire and stop the human tragedy that has engulfed millions of Sudanese people and prevent further destruction of the country’s infrastructure and resources.
According to Sudanese political leaders who spoke to Al-Ahram Weekly, “mediation efforts that lack genuine pressure on the conflicting parties will only result in a temporary ceasefire, allowing them to catch their breath before resuming their hostilities.”
“The only way for the negotiations to achieve a successful outcome is if the US and Saudi Arabia exert palpable, explicit, and concrete pressure on the warring factions, thereby preventing them from engaging in procrastination, time-wasting, or using the negotiation table as a front while continuing their fighting on the ground.”
Al-Hadi Idriss, a member of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council and head of the Revolutionary Front, told the Weekly he hoped the Saudi-US initiative would advance and that the Jeddah negotiations would prove fruitful. He emphasised that there could be no winner in the war and that “the only viable path forward is through dialogue between the warring parties.”
“Ending the war in Sudan requires a collective and concerted effort from all the involved parties,” Idriss said, adding that “the Sudanese people are yearning for an end to the conflict, which is in the interest of all the parties involved.”
He warned that if Sudan were to collapse, this would have severe ramifications for the entire region, and the continuation of the conflict would lead to dire consequences for all.
“The situation in Sudan is dire. The country has been left in ruins, and the Sudanese people are enduring immense suffering and anguish in the face of the ongoing destruction, chaos, and looting. The war has resulted in significant losses across all facets of Sudanese society,” he said.
US President Joe Biden made a statement prior to the Jeddah negotiations, warning that sanctions would be imposed on any party that targeted civilians or obstructed the immediate implementation of a ceasefire and the transfer of power to civilians. It remains unknown whether the US government will impose actual sanctions or if its primary aim is to pressure the conflicting parties to engage in negotiations.
Biden’s assertion that the war in Sudan was a matter of national security is noteworthy. Sudan had extensive experience with US sanctions during the rule of toppled former president Omar Al-Bashir. The US classified Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism, and subsequently Al-Bashir and several of his regime’s leaders were pursued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Sudanese political analyst Khaled Abu Ahmed told Al-Ahram Weekly that “Biden’s remarks were intended to send a strong message to the warring factions that Washington supports the Sudanese people and their aspirations for democratic and civil rule.”
“The two warring factions are currently engaged in a frenzied race to secure as many key locations in Khartoum as possible in an attempt to gain a tactical advantage in the negotiations. This has resulted in an intensification of the fighting.”
Orwa Al-Sadik, a leader of the National Umma Party, emphasised that “the hindrance of civil transformation did not commence with the current conflict, but has instead gone through various stages throughout the transitional period.”
“The US is now employing a more forceful approach to pressure both parties. This has reached the Sudanese leaders, as well as their civilian supporters, who could potentially face personal sanctions if they persist in impeding the democratic transition in Sudan.”
“The use of sanctions as a tool to pressure the conflicting parties to end the war and restore democratic civil governance is a double-edged sword. While it may prove effective in achieving these goals, it could also cause the military leaders to entrench themselves further in their positions, leading Sudan down a path of international isolation, similar to what occurred during Al-Bashir’s rule,” Al-Sadik added.
“Additionally, the imposition of sanctions may motivate extremist groups to enter Sudan, whose borders are now open since a significant portion of the Sudanese forces have been withdrawn from the border into the country.”
Al-Sadik said that “the US-Saudi mediation is one of the most mature and appropriate for the Sudanese situation. The African mediation proposed by IGAD only addressed the military leaders of the two factions, whereas the Saudi-US mediation takes into account all stakeholders, including those invested in the democratic transition, as well as regional, local, and international partners.”
“If the two [the SAF and RSF leaders] respond to the pressure exerted by the mediation, it could provide Sudan with an opportunity to extricate itself from the ongoing conflict and restore the gains of the democratic transition, which were undermined by the 25 October 2021 coup and the battles of 15 April.”
The ongoing war in Sudan has far-reaching ramifications that extend beyond the country’s borders and have the potential to impact neighbouring countries, the wider region, and global security and stability.
The escalation of the conflict has also raised concerns among regional and international powers about their interests, particularly in the light of the ongoing struggle for influence in the African continent and the Arab region.
The current situation in Sudan is undeniably complex, with various domestic, regional, and international factors intermingling. The conflict is driven by struggles over power and wealth, as well as competing visions for the future of Sudan.
There are factions that seek the continuation of military rule, while others demand a civil democratic transformation. The conflict also pits Islamist forces against those who oppose them.
Various regional and international actors are involved in the conflict, and the longer it persists, the more dangerous its repercussions could be for Sudan, the region, and the international community. Egyptian efforts, in particular, could play a crucial role in halting the conflict and preventing further destabilisation in the region.
A version of this article appears in print in the 11 May, 2023 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: