LONDON – Despite silly expectations, Tuesday’s Sudan conference in London was a jarring reality check. Like other forums that sought to make a more unified effort to deal with the civil war two years ago in Sudan, the conference brought together a combination of the Western, Arab and African countries, primarily Western, Arab and African countries with the Sudan War and associated multilateral institutions.
Unlike last year’s previous Paris Conference on Sudan, which raised more than 2 billion euros for Sudan, this did not seek donor pledge (though co-hosts Britain and the EU have announced new aid packages for Sudan). The meeting did not create a joint communica- tion. Negotiations broke in the midst of the conflict between Arab forces on the other side of the war, leading to a statement from the co-chair instead. There was also a lack of effort to form new contact groups. The only hope many officials could offer was the possibility that paralysis itself could prove galvanized.
Negotiations regarding the draft of the Communique have been revealed. Conflicting revisions in one sentence turned out to be no bridging. Egypt and Saudi Arabia supported languages that called for respect for state institutions, an implicit reference to Sudanese forces and de facto governments on one side of the conflict. The UAE, the leading patronage of rival rapid support forces (RSF), rejected the line and instead wanted a stronger language that sought civilian governance.
That diplomatic struggle unveiled the harsh truth that what began as a power struggle between the pillars of Sudan’s military regime has now become a regionalized proxy war. It welcomes Egypt and many other countries that support the Sudanese army (also an unrecognised government of Sudan) in support of the UAE’s RSF. Saudi Arabia is officially neutral and is still closely integrated with the Sudanese army.
These dynamics undermines attempts to revive peace talks over Sudanese troops’ repeated refusal to negotiate with the RSF. It says it will award for the unjust legitimacy of the RSF. Since the second half of 2023, there have been no official in-person meetings between the fighting parties.
Sign up for the AllAfrica newsletter for free
Get the latest African news
success!
Almost finished…
You need to check your email address.
Follow the instructions in the email you sent to complete the process.
error!
There was a problem processing the submission. Please try again later.
In today’s fragmented world, it is unclear which countries or institutions can bridge the external divisions that ripple Sudan. Some external countries that may have wide enough influence (like the United States) have not made war a priority. Even if they do, success is not guaranteed. When Sudanese troops skipped the event, the US push floped to organize peace talks in Geneva last year. Crisis groups suggest that war escalates only when the UAE (as the main supporter of the RSF) reaches some melting of the UAE and Sudanese forces. Several coordinated back-channel attempts along these lines have failed. Such efforts must continue.
The UK deserves credit for spending its diplomatic capital to refocus efforts to end the Sudan war, despite the sisyphean nature of the task. Fear is that the world instead turns its back on ugly wars.
Alan Boswell is the Director of the Crisis Group, Horn, African
