The Geneva talks, aimed at halting hostilities in Sudan, alleviating civilian suffering, and enabling the delivery of humanitarian aid, commenced on 14 August. While the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) sent a delegation, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) did not attend.
The SAF decision posed questions regarding the seriousness of the negotiations, viewed by many as a crucial opportunity to end the war. Will the army eventually join the talks? Is there a genuine attempt to establish peace in Sudan, or will this opportunity be squandered, resulting in continued bloodshed and destruction? What pressures are being placed on the Sudanese army to engage in the talks?
Questions also arose concerning Cairo’s ability to bridge differences after hosting a Sudanese government delegation for discussions with American mediators.
Millions of Sudanese are suffering as displaced persons and refugees, facing war, famine, diseases, and deprivation. Half of Sudan’s population is at risk of starvation and the country is grappling with severe floods, leading to deaths, injuries and widespread diseases like cholera, according to the Sudanese minister of health.
These questions dominate the minds of the Sudanese and resonate in neighbouring countries impacted by the dire circumstances in Sudan and the ongoing conflict. The failure of the Geneva negotiations could potentially exacerbate the war.
The Sudanese army refused to participate in the Geneva talks and expressed reservations regarding the negotiation mechanisms and participants. The SAF insisted that the RSF must adhere to the Jeddah Declaration terms before further dialogue can be held, calling on Washington to enforce them.
But observers view the Jeddah Declaration as a foundational pact that both parties of the conflict have failed to uphold, believing it should evolve in light of the widening scope of the conflict and its repercussions. They insist there should be robust monitoring mechanisms, a separation of forces, and the establishment of humanitarian corridors.
The army’s concerns centre on being treated on an equal footing with the RSF. There is apprehension that the RSF, given their control over large territories in states like Khartoum, Al-Jazeera, Sennar, Kordofan, and the five Darfur states, could hold a dominant position in negotiations.
Despite its absence from the Geneva discussions, the army’s decision to open the Adre border crossing with Chad to facilitate humanitarian aid access to Darfur has garnered international acclaim for its potential to save millions of Sudanese lives. The international community also urged the RSF, dominant in much of the Darfur region, to follow suit and open the crossing for aid delivery.
Following discussions with US officials, the Sudanese government dispatched a delegation to Cairo on Monday to engage in talks with American and Egyptian mediators on their strategy for implementing the Jeddah Declaration. There is hope Cairo could advance the negotiation process, persuading the SAF to join the Geneva talks.
Cairo’s historical ties and communication channels with the Sudanese army, its role as a key participant in the Geneva discussions, and its vested interest in securing peace in Sudan, which is integral to its own national security, may be the catalyst required to push things forward.
Following a phone conversation with US President Joe Biden, President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi expressed “Egypt’s eagerness for an immediate ceasefire and endorsed initiatives aimed at safeguarding Sudan’s unity, territorial integrity, and halting the loss of Sudanese lives.”
An informed Sudanese source told Al-Ahram Weekly that “the SAF’s delegation in Cairo may promptly join the Geneva talks if it receives assurances that the terms of the Jeddah Agreement will be implemented.” They added that “the army places considerable trust in Egypt’s prospective role in enforcing any future agreements.”
Exploiting the army’s reluctance to engage in the Geneva talks, the RSF have positioned themselves as advocates for peace, painting the army as obstructive and resistant to ending the conflict. The RSF commander even indicated his group will adopt escalatory measures to prevent the army from solely dictating the Sudanese people’s fate should negotiations falter.
The US is committed to ensuring the success of the Geneva negotiations, rallying its regional and international allies and employing a mix of incentives and deterrents to sway opposing factions.
The US position is driven by several factors, notably the escalating crisis in Sudan, which has galvanised numerous US advocacy groups. In addition, intense global and regional competition for influence over Sudan, which enjoys a strategic position in the Arab world, Africa, the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa, and across global trade routes, has heightened the US interest.
Washington is particularly concerned about the SAF’s growing ties with Iran and Russia, what is more, prompting a keen interest in making headway on the Sudanese conflict to wield it as a diplomatic advantage for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris against Republican candidate Donald Trump.
The Geneva negotiations are a crucial opportunity to end the war and provide much needed relief to the Sudanese, sparing them the daily cycle of death, destruction, and devastation.
The road to peace in Sudan is arduous and long, given the large number of parties involved in the conflict, each with vested interests. This requires concerted efforts from the international community, Sudan’s neighbours and allies, as well as its leaders and active forces.
Crucially, the initial step towards peace hinges on securing a ceasefire agreement to rescue the country from further descending into uncertainty and chaos.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 22 August, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: