The assassination attempt on the Sudanese army commander Abdel-Fattah Al-Burhan over a week ago at a Military College officers graduation ceremony in Jubayt, eastern Sudan continues to be shrouded in mystery. Neither experts nor everyday people can explain what really happened while, 16 months into its civil war, Sudan rushes towards the abyss.

The attempted assassination has precipitated a flurry of questions about its implications, particularly concerning the forthcoming negotiations slated for 14 August between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Geneva, on the invitation of the US.

Brigadier General Nabil Abdullah, the army’s spokesperson, quickly pointed the finger at the RSF, saying its drones were behind the assault that left five officers dead. Advocates of this theory said the RSF previously threatened to target SAF leaders and that it was attempting to destabilise Sudan and create a power vacuum by killing Al-Burhan.

They added that the RSF was increasingly using drones to attack numerous locations across Sudan, seeking to target Port Sudan, the country’s temporary administrative capital, to widen the scope of the war to the east. They also noted that drone strikes in regions like the White Nile, Gedaref, and along the Nile River corroborate their theory.

Mohamed Al-Mokhtar, the legal adviser to the RSF commander, disputed RSF involvement in the assassination attempt on Al-Burhan, suggesting that the attack may be linked to internal rivalries among Islamists or generals.

Al-Basha Al-Tabiq, another adviser to the RSF commander, attributed the assassination attempt to a threat issued by the Al-Baraa Brigade, a group of young Islamists aligned with the army. Voices within the RSF dismissed the idea that it was behind the assassination attempt, saying the RSF is not so naïve as to believe Al-Burhan’s death would signal the end of the conflict.

Sudanese experts have suggested that Islamists with ties to the ousted regime of President Omar Al-Bashir, whether or not they are in the army, orchestrated the assault to pressure Al-Burhan into abstaining from the 14 August peace talks, either because they have reservations about his policies or due to foreign pressures exerted on the Sudanese military.

Half an hour after the attempt on his life, Al-Burhan addressed the graduating officers, visited the wounded at Jubayt Hospital, and toured the local market before departing for Port Sudan. In his speech, Al-Burhan said: “The Sudanese army will not engage in negotiations with the Rapid Support Forces, does not fear drones or death, and will persist in the fight until the nation is rid of insurgents and mercenaries… The army is determined to crush the militia. Our fight goes on against the enemy. We will not waiver or negotiate with any party.”

The attempted assassination of Al-Burhan took place amid international endeavours led by the US and regional allies to broker negotiations between the SAF and RSF. The attack has cast a shadow over the prospects of peace talks, which were anticipated as a crucial step towards a ceasefire and heralding a return to peace in Sudan. The nation has been ravaged by a protracted and devastating conflict, claiming an estimated 150,000 lives according to international organisations and triggering the largest displacement crisis on earth. Compounding these woes, Sudan is grappling with its most severe famine in four decades.

This was not the first attempt on Al-Burhan’s life. Since the war broke out in April 2023, the RSF has repeatedly tried to eliminate Al-Burhan amid fragile security and conflicting agendas within his own ranks, with some advocating the continuation of the war while others seek negotiations.

The fear is that the assassination attempt may harden the SAF’s position in Geneva. The RSF has expressed readiness to engage in these talks from the outset, accusing the army of manoeuvring to avoid negotiations.

Al-Burhan’s side has linked its participation in negotiations to the implementation of agreements outlined in the Jeddah Declaration of May 2023, including the withdrawal of the RSF from civilian areas and residents’ houses. It appears that the army aims to partake in negotiations as a governing entity and does not want to start the talks anew, fearing that this might legitimise the RSF’s extensive presence across Sudan, thereby undermining its own standing in the negotiations.

This diplomatic push by US is crucial, potentially serving as a pivotal achievement for the US administration as a strategic asset in the heated electoral contest between Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump.

There is a palpable concern about whether US pressures, bolstered by extensive collaboration with Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the African Union, IGAD, and the United Nations, could yield positive results for Sudan. In recent weeks these parties have exerted diplomatic efforts to bolster the prospects of success for the upcoming Geneva negotiations. Previous indirect talks held between the army and the RSF under UN auspices in Geneva a few weeks ago failed to produce tangible results in addressing the dire humanitarian crisis, with the deadliest weapons being used and the spectre of famine haunting 25 million people.

It is hoped that the upcoming Geneva negotiations will exert pressure on both parties to cease hostilities, establish humanitarian corridors, ensure unimpeded delivery of aid to avert famine, safeguard civilians, and institute robust monitoring mechanisms before transitioning into a substantive political process. While many believe that external pressure alone can halt the conflict, they fear the upcoming outcomes in Geneva may not materialise.

The Geneva negotiations are mired in complexities due to the internal and external alliances of the SAF and RSF. They both have reservations regarding potential solutions that could jeopardise their interests. Neither party seems to be swayed by the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe or its dire consequences for the lives of the Sudanese and the country’s future.

The current situation doesn’t threaten Sudan and its people alone. It is damaging other countries’ interests. It is not unlikely that international intervention will be initiated to protect Sudan’s civilians if the Geneva talks falter.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 8 August, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly