Sudan’s Peace and the Double Standards
Osman Mirghani
From Lebanon to Iraq and Syria, calls for shutting down non-state militancy are growing louder. Stances on this phenomenon in Sudan reflect a clear double standard. Instead of demanding the disarmament of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the settlement currently being promoted entails reaching a compromise with the RSF.
In what appears to be a coordinated campaign, a new US-backed peace “initiative” for Sudan has been heavily promoted recently. The proposal reportedly includes power- and wealth-sharing arrangements, along with an autonomy arrangement for Darfur. While the leadership of the Sudanese army and the RSF have denied that any negotiations are taking place, and although a military adviser has stressed that no proposal for autonomy has been presented, there are signs that some parties are indeed pushing in this direction- the parties who had previously called for forming a parallel government in the areas under RSF control.
The narrative about a US initiative is that the Trump administration, buoyed by last month’s success in brokering a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, could now be inclined to tackle the war in Sudan. However, the differences between the two cases are stark. Moreover, the undeniable complexities of the Sudanese conflict should not be overlooked. Nonetheless, the prospect of securing a peace deal in Sudan is greatly appealing to President Donald Trump, who is openly eyeing the Nobel Peace Prize to become the fifth US president to receive one, with Barack Obama the last one to do so. Perhaps this is why, after a recent meeting with five African leaders at the White House, Trump reaffirmed his intention to end the war in Sudan.
Against this backdrop, we saw efforts to organize a quadrilateral meeting of foreign ministers in Washington that includes the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. However, it was put off due to disagreements over which Sudanese parties would be included. There were objections, despite US support for the idea, to including civilian leaders, most notably Abdalla Hamdok, through parallel meetings. Meanwhile, it was reported that the American administration did support including Sudanese army representatives.
Amid all the speculation surrounding Washington’s approach to Sudan, one thing is certain: President Trump seeks to further American interests and make deals, with little regard for democracy or civilian governance. Accordingly, the US would likely seek to end the war and broker an agreement between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), nothing more. However, serious hurdles stand in the way of even that objective. Any agreement that allows the RSF to return to the political scene before laying down its arms, as was suggested in the “framework agreement,” would be unacceptable to the army and to the majority of Sudanese citizens, who have suffered immensely at the hands of the RSF.
Those promoting a solution founded on “self-rule” either fail to understand the complexity of the situation or have no real concern for Sudan’s well-being. Their proposal is built around ensuring RSF control over Darfur, and they have already supported the creation of a parallel government there. This is viewed as “Plan B,” following the failure of the original plan to take control of the entire country, first through a military coup (at the start of the war) and then by expanding the areas under RSF control after the coup attempt collapsed.
No solution that paves the way for gradual partition, as is being proposed for Darfur, will bring peace. Rather, it will have disastrous repercussions for Sudan and the wider region. Darfur is far from homogeneous; it is home to a rich mosaic of ethnic and tribal communities. The RSF does not, by any stretch, represent the majority of people in Darfur. Many see it as a “family-run militia with a narrow tribal base.” Although it has managed to draw support from some tribal groups by offering them money, access to weapons, and spoils of war, these alliances remain fragile and susceptible to collapse and inter-tribal splits. In fact, numerous clashes have already erupted between rival factions within the RSF-led tribal coalition.
Several major Darfurian tribes strongly oppose the RSF, and they will not acquiesce to RSF dominance of the region. The RSF has also massacred other tribal communities, such as the Masalit and Zaghawa, and it has been accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing by international organizations. Sanctions have already been imposed on several members of its top brass.
No effort to impose a Libyan scenario, or to push for secession along the lines of South Sudan, can bring peace, only endless conflict. Notably, schemes to split and shrink Sudan have long been pushed in public American and Israeli statements. It now appears that some parties may be seeking to return to those plans as part of the current effort to redraw the region’s map.
