TheAfricaReport.com: Opinion: Why are United States’ peace efforts in Sudan failing?
Posted by: Berhane Habtemariam
Date: Saturday, 14 September 2024
A woman protecting her face with a cardboard bearing the Sudanese flag as she holds a banner next to the monumental wood sculpture “Broken Chair” (L) during a demonstration on the opening day of Sudan ceasefire talks, in Geneva, on August 14, 2024. (Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP)
By Amgad Fareid Eltayeb
Posted on September 14, 2024 12:04
Washington’s efforts to mediate Sudan’s civil war will continue to fail if all parties involved are not at the negotiating table.
The US-brokered Sudan peace talks in Switzerland concluded on 24 August, with the Sudanese government delegation absent. Even though US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had called on Sovereign Council chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhanmultiple times, he refused to attend during the 10 day of talks.
The talks were announced by the US State Department on 23 July, with Saudi Arabia as a co-host, and the UAE, Egypt, AU, and the UN as observers. The talks took place on its preplanned date (14 August), with the Sudanese participating through the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and a group of civilians handpicked by the US State Department without prior disclosure of their identities or selection criteria.
Washington had initially announced that the talks would be attended by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, but this was later downgraded to the US Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Mike Hammer, and the US Special Envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello.
Switzerland talks
The collapse of the Switzerland talks was a predictable outcome given their rushed and ill-prepared nature. The Sudanese side flagged concern early on about the invitation being extended to the Sudanese army rather than to the Sudanese government. It expressed reservations about expanding the mediation circle to include parties and countries deemed supportive of the RSF militia, mainly the UAE.
Furthermore, the Sudanese government questioned the implementation of previous agreements, particularly the Jeddah Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan, demanding a mechanism to ensure the militia’s adherence to prior commitments before entering new negotiations.
A preparatory meeting between a Sudanese government delegation and the US envoy Perillo in Jeddah on 9 August concluded without agreement due to Washington’s refusal to address these concerns regarding participation.
Following the start of the negotiations in Geneva and amid increasing international pressure, a meeting was arranged between a Sudanese delegation and the US envoy in Cairo to address Sudanese concerns. However, the meeting was abruptly cancelled due to protocol violations by the Sudanese delegation, as cited by the US envoy.
Africa Insights
Wake up to the essential with the Editor's picks.
Also receive offers from The Africa Report
Also receive offers from The Africa Report's partners
It was later revealed that the preparatory meeting in Cairo was cancelled owing to Perillo’s objection to the composition of the Sudanese delegation. The Sudanese government sent a delegation led by minister Mohamed Bashir Abu Namu, who is affiliated with one of the Darfur movements that signed the Juba Peace Agreement (JPA). However, Perillo opposed the inclusion of government officials from Darfur movements, arguing that the delegation should solely represent the Army, not the government of Sudan.
Tagadum Alliance and RSF vs Sudanese government
The US appears to be excluding all parties except the army and RSF militia from Sudan’s peace talks to ensure that those making up the Tagadum Alliance, led by former Prime Minister Abdulla Hamdok (who currently resides in the UAE), remain the third party in any initiative that could impact the current status quo.
Perillo’s opposition to the participation of the JPA signatories not only undermines Sudan’s sovereignty but also marginalises a critical component of the Sudanese government. The signatories of the JPA helped to end the previous bloody conflict in Darfur, during which the RSF was their main adversary. These signatories now make up fundamental parts of the Sudanese government, and their forces are once again participating in the war against the RSF.
Addressing this delegation dilemma
The striking similarity in language and undiplomatic wording used by the US envoy and the Tagadum discourse in referencing the situation in Sudan serves as circumstantial evidence of this political bias.
Perillo’s recent mischaracterisation of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council’s decision to open the Adre crossing for humanitarian aid nearly jeopardised the implementation of this measure. This narrative aligns with that promoted by the Tagadum Alliance, which closely mirrors the RSF’s perspective.
The terminology employed by the US envoy which mirrors that of the Tagadum discourse to reference Sudan is indicative of this political bias. The US was part of a coalition of Western donors that funded and supported Tagadum’s founding conference in May as well as its prior and subsequent activities.
To address this dilemma, the participation of JPA signatories should be included in the government’s delegation. The expansion of ceasefire talks should also include other military factions in Sudan, such as SPLM-North under the leadership of Abdelaziz Elhilo and SLMA – Abdelwahid Nur, which enjoy sizable political and military presence in Darfur. These two movements were not part of the JPA or current conflict, but they are a reality in Sudan.
Tagadum Alliance, however, should be included in the RSF negotiating delegation. It is no secret that forces belonging to Al-Hadi Idris, Hamdok’s deputy in the Tagadum chairmanship, and those under Taher Hajar, a member of the Alliance’s leadership body, are actively fighting alongside the RSF. Furthermore, Hamdok and head of RSF Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo alias Hemeti signed a public declaration between Tagadum Alliance and the RSF in Addis Ababa on 2 January, outlining political parameters and a joint vision for the Sudanese war.
US cannot mediate without including all groups
It is time to adopt a comprehensive peace approach to end war(s) in Sudan. The US cannot claim to be mediating for peace in Sudan without having an established strategy to deal with all militarised groups
Furthermore, Washington’s attempt to include external parties accused of involvement in the conflict while excluding Sudanese stakeholders actively engaged in the battle is unreasonable. The UAE’s direct involvement in fuelling the war in Sudan has been proven by numerous independent press reports and the UN Panel of Experts on Darfur report.
The US’ inclusion of UAE in an alliance for peace in Sudan appears as an attempt to cover up its role in stoking the conflict and creating one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time. The Sudanese government’s acceptance of this undermines its case against UAE aggression and weakens any claims for war reparations in the future.
Washington’s ‘myopic approach’
US’ mediation efforts are not marred by malevolent intentions but rather by a myopic approach that oversimplifies the burden of the atrocities in this crisis. The soft power wielded by the US, however substantial, will fail short to coerce an alternative reality upon the Sudanese people. US efforts for peace in Sudan appears to be tantamount to a proposition to the Sudanese people: ‘We will work to stop the war, on the condition that you accept the occupation of your country’.
These attempts by the US seem to mask its diminished global influence and its blatant inability to force the UAE to abide by anything, even if that thing is international law.
The US Envoy’s failure to establish direct communication channels with the Sudanese government has also hampered mediation efforts. Since his February appointment, Perillo failed to have any in-person meeting with Sudanese authorities, relying solely on proxy communication and phone calls.
While security concerns prevented him from visiting Port Sudan, that does not justify his disregard of institutional channels. Perillo has never interacted with the Sudanese ambassador in Washington, Sudan’s UN representative, or even the military attaché in DC, who represents the Sudanese Army. This reluctance to communicate with Sudanese diplomats suggests a lack of institutional protocol and a potential prioritisation of personal importance over diplomatic objectives.
Crimes during the negotiations
Despite the 10-day talks in Geneva, RSF killed over 650 Sudanese in attacks targeting civilian premises in Khartoum, Omdurman, El Fasher, Gezira State, Sennar State, and North Kordofan State. During the same period, the militia committed war crimes by bombing Omdurman Maternity Hospital, Al-Nau Hospital, and Al-Sadaqa Hospital in El Fasher.
On 19 August, the RSF militia bombed and destroyed a humanitarian supply warehouse near the Zamzam IDP camp in North Darfur, destroying stocks of food, medical supplies, and the only ambulance serving over half a million displaced people. The camp has been under continuous attack and shelling since May, leading to a deteriorating humanitarian situation with at least one child dying every two hours due to hunger according to MSF.
No real or serious efforts to stop the war in Sudan and end the suffering of the Sudanese people can succeed by ignoring the crimes and violations being committed.
A Sudanese proverb says: “He who dances, does not cover his beard.” Addressing reality is the shortest path to ending this war.
