US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE, proposed the initiative, which has been criticised by Sudan’s government.
A joint peace initiative proposed for Sudan by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates was only published on Friday, but it’s success is already looking uncertain.
The United Nations estimates that approximately 40,000 people have been killed in the fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), but the number of dead could be far higher. A research group last November estimated that 60,000 had died as a result of the war – directly from violence, or indirectly from starvation and disease – in Khartoum state alone.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 items
- list 1 of 4In besieged Sudan city, civilians face death if they try to escape
- list 2 of 4Hundreds of bodies pulled from Darfur landslides as many remain trapped
- list 3 of 4Ethiopia opens Nile dam despite concerns from Egypt and Sudan
- list 4 of 4Father reunited with family in Sudan after media news report
end of list
Almost 13 million people have been displaced in Sudan, according to figures from the UN. And about half of those who remain are experiencing acute food insecurity, with famine identified in parts of the country and predicted by agencies to spread.
Several attempts to halt the fighting have already failed. Could the latest plan be different?
What is in the latest peace proposal?
In their latest proposal, published on Friday, the so-called “Quad” countries – the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE – have called for a three-month humanitarian truce in the fighting followed by a permanent ceasefire and a nine-month transitional period during which power would be assumed by a broad-based civilian-led government.
“There is no viable military solution to the conflict, and the status quo creates unacceptable suffering and risks to peace and security,” the statement read.
The proposal also focuses on the Muslim Brotherhood, saying that Sudan’s future could not be “dictated by violent extremist groups part of or evidently linked to the Muslim Brotherhood”.
Some forces within the SAF are considered to be loosely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members reject the assertion that they are violent or extremist. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE all consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be a “terrorist” group.
How have the two sides in Sudan reacted?
While the RSF has yet to officially respond to the Quad’s peace plan, it has been reported that an RSF-backed parallel government has welcomed elements of it.
However, the government in Khartoum, which was established by the army in June, has criticised it.
In a statement from its foreign ministry, the government said that, while it welcomed efforts to end the war, it would not accept “interventions that do not respect the sovereignty of the Sudanese state and its legitimate institutions, which are supported by the Sudanese people, and its right to defend its people and its land”.
Have there been previous efforts to halt the fighting?
Yes, and they’ve all failed. Talks have run almost the length of the conflict. However, with mutual distrust rife, and accusations of violations commonplace, the ceasefires that were reached have been fleeting.
From almost the outbreak of the fighting in April 2023 to May of the same year, there were a series of brief ceasefires and truces, all of which failed to hold.
One of the first substantial efforts to halt the fighting came from Saudi Arabia and the US when they attempted to negotiate a ceasefire through what they termed the Jeddah Platform, which ran from May-June 2023. However, despite some gains, negotiations broke down amid mutual accusations of violations and disagreements over access for humanitarian aid.
Later that year, the grouping of East African States known as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) announced that both sides had agreed to a ceasefire pending direct talks, only for each side to either dismiss or contest the claim.
In August 2024, Saudi Arabia tried again, this time through talks in the Swiss city of Geneva. The intention was for negotiations to lead to a nationwide ceasefire. However, the SAF objected to the involvement of the UAE as observers, accusing the Gulf country of backing the RSF, and talks faltered.
The UAE has rejected accusations that it funds and arms the RSF, saying its involvement in Sudan is strictly limited to humanitarian matters.
What’s at stake?
One of the largest countries in Africa, Sudan’s pre-war population of 50 million has been battered by the war between the SAF and RSF.
In addition to the tens of thousands killed and millions displaced are the daily instances of what the UN notes are the “executions, torture, and rape” occurring in many communities already experiencing the spread of diseases, such as cholera, from a decimated infrastructure.
While both sides are accused of committing atrocities, the UN has found that the RSF has committed “crimes against humanity”, including “large-scale killings, sexual and gender-based violence, looting, and the destruction of livelihoods – at times rising to persecution and extermination”.
According to the World Food Programme, a total of 24.6 million people, about half of the population, are suffering acute food insecurity, while 637,000 face devastating levels of hunger.
Famine has already been confirmed in areas such as Zamzam and el-Fasher, areas the RSF has besieged for months, with projections suggesting that, if support is not provided, its spread is almost inevitable.
