Introduction & Context
For weeks, Sudan has been gripped by clashes between rival factions that once shared power. The violence erupted suddenly on April 15, catching many residents off-guard. Now, the global community’s best hope rests on Saudi Arabia’s mediation in Jeddah, where representatives of the Sudanese Army and RSF are trying to hammer out at least a temporary truce. However, repeated short-term ceasefires have collapsed almost immediately, raising doubts about this latest round. Even as negotiations begin, neighborhoods in Khartoum endure shelling, and electricity and water shortages intensify the civilian plight. The talks hold symbolic importance but have yet to yield a real cessation of hostilities.
Background & History
Sudan’s political trajectory has been tumultuous since long-time leader Omar al-Bashir was ousted in 2019. The transitional period that followed was marred by power struggles between the military, civilian leaders, and paramilitary forces. Eventually, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan emerged as the de facto head of state, with the RSF operating somewhat independently under Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as “Hemedti”). Tensions simmered over the RSF’s role in national security, culminating in open conflict. Historically, Sudan has faced multiple civil wars and unrest—this latest crisis is different primarily because it pits two powerful military factions against each other, leaving civilians dangerously caught in the crossfire.
Key Stakeholders & Perspectives
The Sudanese Army is led by Gen. Burhan, who insists on subjugating the RSF within a unified military command. The RSF, under Hemedti, resists losing its autonomy and wants a say in the country’s political future. Civilian activists and democratic movements, once central to post-Bashir reforms, have been sidelined, feeling betrayed by both factions. Regional powers like Egypt and the Gulf states also have interests: they seek stability but sometimes back rival players for strategic gain. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia stepped in to broker talks, hoping to end violence before a full-scale humanitarian crisis unfolds. Meanwhile, ordinary Sudanese—caught between warring generals—struggle to survive, with hospitals running out of supplies and neighborhoods turning into battlegrounds.
Analysis & Implications
The potential outcomes run the gamut. If a genuine ceasefire can be reached, it might open corridors for humanitarian aid, providing immediate relief and possibly giving civilian groups space to reassert their role in governance. However, deep distrust exists: both the Army and RSF accuse each other of sabotage, and multiple truces have crumbled. Should negotiations fail again, experts fear a prolonged conflict that fragments Sudan along new lines or even draws in outside forces. In broader geopolitical terms, a destabilized Sudan could impact neighboring countries, fueling refugee flows and extremism. For Europe and the U.S., the direct impact is less immediate, but a humanitarian catastrophe could prompt calls for intervention. The real tragedy is the stalling of Sudan’s democratic aspirations, as the armed factions overshadow the civilian voice, potentially setting back the quest for stable governance by years.
Looking Ahead
Diplomats in Jeddah remain tight-lipped on details, suggesting the talks are at a fragile stage. The U.S. has hinted at possible sanctions or other measures if either side derails a ceasefire. Observers note that the success of any deal relies on genuine commitment to disarmament or at least a verified withdrawal of troops from urban centers. Civilians are holding their breath: many have fled to neighboring states, and those who remain rely on sporadic electricity and diminishing food supplies. In the coming days, watch for announcements from Saudi and American officials about the talks’ progress or potential collapse. If the negotiations fail, the conflict could escalate, hardening each side’s stance. If they succeed, it will be a first step in a lengthy process of returning to a transitional government, which ideally includes the once-excluded civilian leaders.
Our Experts' Perspectives
- Military conflicts that lack a clear victor can drag on indefinitely unless external powers consistently push for peace.
- Civilians must be central to the peace process; ignoring them risks repeating cycles of top-down deals that collapse under local pressures.
- Humanitarian corridors are urgently needed: crises become more complex when basic aid can’t reach those trapped in fighting.