The devastating conflict in Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group formed by longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir before he was swept from power in 2019, is well into its second year. International efforts led by Washington, the United Nations, and other international bodies and governments have thus far failed to bring SAF and RSF leaders together for talks to end the violence. Multiple peace initiatives, including those led by the United States and Saudi Arabia in Jeddah, the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) trading bloc, and others have all fallen short in securing a cessation of hostilities.
Unless parties are willing to at least come to the table to agree on a ceasefire, there is no pathway toward a broader inclusive political dialogue that ultimately will be needed to establish civilian rule and the democratic transition that had animated Sudan’s people for the massive protests that ousted al-Bashir. Thus, Sudanese are placing high hopes on talks — and on diplomatic pressure on the part of Washington, the United Nations, and the African Union — that can restore peace and allow the dream of a democratic Sudan to be realized.
While U.S.- and Saudi-led peace talks have remained suspended for more than six months, the Sudanese people continue to suffer through one of the most devastating and destructive wars in the country’s modern history. More than 70 percent of the country, especially the urban centers, remains unsafe as the RSF continues its offensives, engaging in atrocious violence and plundering heavily populated cities. And the SAF has continued its indiscriminate aerial bombardments of RSF-controlled territory. In addition to famine in some parts of Sudan, the United Nations migration agency, the International Organisation for Migration, said this week that flooding has compounded the disaster, leaving Sudan at “a catastrophic breaking point.”
People are dying in large numbers due to the violence and the destruction of their means of survival. In a recent attack on El Fasher, in North Darfur, more than 700 civilians died in indiscriminate shelling after the RSF besieged the city. Those who flee the RSF’s attacks often face a grim fate, succumbing to hunger as the warring parties block access to vital aid. The ongoing flow of arms and logistics, coupled with the failure of accountability mechanisms, has only incentivized the belligerents to continue the fighting.
Glimpse of Hope
On July 23, Washington invited the RSF and SAF to peace talks to be held in Switzerland. Scheduled to commence in the coming days, the Geneva talks aim to achieve three key objectives: a cessation of hostilities, humanitarian access, and adherence to previous agreements including the 2023 Jeddah Declaration. If successful, this will mark the first meeting between the belligerent factions’ leaders since the outbreak of the war, but SAF commander General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has thus far refused to participate, leaving prospects for negotiations in limbo.
Given the scale of the crisis, expanding violence, and the risk of widespread famine, these peace talks are critical for the survival of millions stranded amid the conflict with nowhere to escape. And other substantial obstacles remain, too — the belligerents’ impunity, a failed arms embargo, and the presence of other armed groups — casting a shadow over the prospects for genuine and inclusive, lasting peace.
Continued Impunity
On April 19, 2023, five days after the conflict began in Sudan, members of the U.S. Congress sent a bipartisan letter to President Joe Biden urging consideration of whether the Global Magnitsky Act, a law authorizing sanctions for human rights violations and corruption, could apply to the crimes committed by the RSF and its commander, Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo. The letter called for scrutiny of violations in the first week of the war and during the period after al-Bashir’s downfall. Since then, RSF crimes have worsened, with attacks in Darfur, ethnically motivated massacres in El Geneina, and ongoing assaults in El Gezira, Sennar, and El Fasher.
In September 2023, the Biden administration sanctioned the RSF’s second in command, Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo, and Islamist leader Ali Karti. In May 2024, it sanctioned two mid-level RSF commanders, including the late Ali Yagoub Gibril. However, top leaders like Hemedti remain unpunished. The International Criminal Court expanded its investigation to include crimes in Darfur after April 15, 2023, but its slow process has not deterred the RSF. The SAF continues to conduct indiscriminate bombings of RSF-controlled cities, causing civilian casualties. The SAF-led caretaker government in Port Sudan also obstructs humanitarian aid, exacerbating the crisis. This impunity and lack of accountability allow for ongoing violence and suffering.
Failed Arms Embargo
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1591, issued in 2005, imposed an arms embargo on Sudan, monitored by a U.N. panel of experts. However, following the suspension of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur in 2021, the flow of weapons into the region increased significantly. And since April 2023, the influx of advanced weaponry has surged, enhancing the military strength of the RSF beyond that of the national army. The New York Times and a U.N. panel of experts have reported that most of these arms were supplied by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) through Chad, with additional logistics and arms coming from the former Wagner Group, a Russian state-funded private military group since folded into Russia’s military, via Libya. Initially reliant mostly on Egypt for arms and political support, the SAF has diversified its arms-supply sources to include Turkey, Iran, and potentially Russia.
The continued supply of advanced weaponry to both sides shows the failure of the arms embargo. The involvement of external states and nonstate actors since then also underscores the need for stronger enforcement. It is crucial for international actors such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt to face robust action if peace is to be restored in Sudan, but that action has not been forthcoming. The United States — despite concerns raised by members of Congress — as well as the European Union, and the United Kingdom have notably ignored the UAE’s role in the conflict.
While sanctions can influence the actions of foreign players and place pressure on the domestic belligerents, they are not enough to end the war; the free flow of arms and related support into Sudan must be stopped. Washington has strong influence on both the UAE and Egypt. It should wield that influence to prevent these external spoilers from worsening the destructive conflict in Sudan. Furthermore, the UN Security Council must review and update Resolution 1591 to address the current situation and should establish a new sanctions regime to enforce the resolution’s aims.
The Risk of Neutral Factions Moving Off the Sidelines
The conflict in Sudan appears as if it’s taking place between two primary factions, the SAF and the RSF. However, this oversimplifies the situation. There are more than 10 different groups with active armed wings, some of which have allied themselves loosely with either the SAF or the RSF. Two significant groups, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM-Elhillo) and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM-A-Wahed), maintain considerable arms and recruitment bases but have remained neutral.
The Geneva peace talks, which focus primarily on the SAF and RSF, are meant to end hostilities and pave a way for a full transition to civilian-led governance. But those goals could be imperiled if the two, currently neutral armed groups enter the conflict. This is likely to happen if they perceive the Geneva talks as a political incentive and view their effective neutrality as a political disincentive in a potential post-agreement power-sharing deal. To avoid further escalation of this kind, at least some of these groups must be incorporated into an effective mechanism that involves them in the peace process, even as observers — and especially on the cease-fire and humanitarian-access agenda. The peace talks should also be open and transparent, to avoid misinterpretations on the part of armed and civilian groups.
The potential of a peace process presents a fragile glimmer of hope. But achieving a sustainable and just resolution requires a concerted effort to halt the foreign flow of arms, make it more costly for on-the-ground commanders to wage their war, and effectively navigate the intricate landscape of armed and civilian actors. Only through a holistic and inclusive approach, where civilians take the lead, can Sudan hope to emerge from its current turmoil and move toward a stable, democratic future.