The armed conflicts in Sudan have been going on for around a year. According to multiple sources including the BBC and CNN, the conflict is between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. The joining of the SPLM-N rebel group in the fighting — which has spread to several areas including Khartoum, the capital city, the greater Darfur and Kordofan regions, killed thousands, displaced more than seven million and led to civilian abuses — has made the problem complicated. But there is no indication of ending the war, risking the destabilizing peace in the conflict-prone regions such as the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, North Africa and the Red Sea basin.
It is notable that negotiation-based and other efforts have been made by regional forums and others to mitigate the conflict, mainly a power struggle between the leaders of the SAF and the RSF led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the head of the transitional government, and Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, respectively, who orchestrated the coup against Abdallah Hamdok together and suspended the national constitution. Among steps, US- and Saudi-led Initiatives, participated by the SAF and the RSF driven by the pressure from foreign governments and rights groups, and Kenya and Djibouti-led Initiatives of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, the Horn of Africa regional forum, are notable. But they have yet to bring any notable outcomes in ending the conflict in Sudan.
While international efforts reaffirmed agreements to improve humanitarian access, they failed to strike a deal, needed to end the war. Though Saudi-US Initiatives, rendered low-level and sporadic, raised hope for restoring peace, none of the conflicting parties agreed to cease violence. East African Peace Initiatives led by Kenya and Djibouti — which pushed for direct talks between the belligerents and led to an IGAD Summit in Djibouti on December 9, 2023, though it was unattended by Hemedti and a meeting scheduled for 28 December was postponed — has some prospects for resolving the crisis as both warring leaders, according to multiple newspapers, separately intended to reach a ceasefire agreement, resolve conflicts with political dialogue and talk to each other directly.
It is desired that the IGAD mitigation initiatives be strengthened to make a complete ceasefire agreement on the Sudanese conflict, which has stalled the country’s transition efforts. But several challenges including the denouncement of direct talks by Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs by blaming the RSF as a terrorist and criminal organization and the complicated dynamics of the regional group may put hindrances to achieving a cessation of hostilities in Sudan. It may also be challenging to carry out successful peace negotiations without the positive role of the states/parties with the most influence over, or effective relations with, the conflicting party or parties including, but not limited to, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
It is further desired that challenges be addressed to holding direct talks and that negotiations be successful in reaching a complete ceasefire agreement across the country. For this, the leaders of the IGAD need to make a coordinated effort to hold direct talks between the parties. The positive role of the United States, the European Union and other international actors will be helpful in pushing the regional group to hold direct talks and reach a ceasefire agreement — capable of reaching a lasting solution/peace in Sudan. But negotiations also need to seek a strong commitment and binding measures from the warring parties.
Amir M Sayem
Chief Editor
Dhaka Opinion Magazine
