Sudan at War: The Art of Peace Negotiations and Why They Often Fail
By Philip Kastner
In August 2024, high-level peace talks were held to negotiate a necessary ceasefire in Sudan. Unfortunately, no tangible outcomes emerged from the talks in Switzerland, which were hosted by the United States and Saudi Arabia.
There had been previous efforts to bring the main warring parties in Sudan—the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—to the negotiating table to halt the war. Significant efforts in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, brokered a short-term ceasefire a month after the conflict began in April 2023, but no further significant successes were achieved.
Meanwhile, the fighting continues. Eleven million people out of a population of about fifty million have been displaced, and half of the population suffers from severe hunger. Philip Kastner, an international law and peace researcher who has analyzed several peace negotiations and agreements, explains the obstacles Sudan faces on the path to a peace agreement.
Why Do Peace Talks Fail?
Negotiating peace is an extremely complex process, and there are many reasons why talks often fail.
First, the warring parties sometimes don’t come to the negotiating table because they aren’t convinced they will benefit from the talks. This happened during the peace talks in Switzerland regarding Sudan. While the RSF sent a delegation, the SAF, the other main party in the conflict, did not.
Second, external support for negotiations and pressure on the parties to resolve their conflict peacefully is often insufficient. In Sudan’s case, key international players, including the U.S., the United Nations, and several regional powers, officially supported the recent talks. However, the reality is that many of these parties have conflicting interests. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in particular, see this war as an opportunity to increase their influence.
Given their significant leverage over both the Sudanese military and the RSF, these powers could and should have taken a more active role in mediating between the warring parties. This would have sent a message to the international community that Sudan’s suffering is being taken seriously. In fact, the current humanitarian catastrophe should be a red line. At the very least, all military support for the warring parties must cease.
Moreover, the expertise of specialized non-governmental organizations, which have no specific geopolitical interests, has not been sufficiently relied upon. Such organizations have helped mediate conflicts worldwide, including in Mozambique, Ethiopia, and Indonesia’s Aceh region. This neutral expertise is essential for managing complex situations like that in Sudan.
What Needs to Happen in Sudan?
Negotiating peace is not a matter of following a simple recipe. It is rarely a linear process that progresses through clearly defined stages.
For example, contrary to what is often assumed, a ceasefire does not necessarily have to be the first step. In fact, many peace negotiations, from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Colombia, took place while fighting continued and resulted in substantial agreements.
It’s also important to understand that focusing solely on high-level talks is not enough. Peace must also be built on the ground. Civil society, including women, cannot be marginalized. In Sudan, divisions are growing as both the SAF and RSF lack centralized control over their broad alliances.
Local agreements can significantly increase the safety of people in a particular area. These agreements can also provide an opportunity for some fighters to disarm and return to civilian life, contributing to more sustainable peacebuilding.
Instead, ethnic tensions have been exploited and exacerbated by ethnic recruitment of fighters. Additionally, allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including indiscriminate killings and rape, evoke memories of the Darfur genocide 20 years ago.
This suffering, along with the complexity of the conflict, means that the international community cannot wait for the “right moment” when the warring parties agree that negotiation is better than fighting. It is a common mistake to hope for such ideal conditions for negotiations.
Instead, those with leverage over the parties must continuously seek entry points for talks and create opportunities for peace. Every small gain is a success.
The warring parties must agree to cease hostilities and open humanitarian corridors to allow aid organizations to do their work and save lives. Instead, they have chosen to continue the war and block humanitarian access, with catastrophic consequences.
What Other Obstacles Stand in the Way?
The factors fueling the conflict must also be addressed. One barrier to peace in Sudan is that both the SAF and RSF have significant financial means, particularly due to the gold trade. This allows them to sustain the war. Therefore, it will be necessary to impose international sanctions to cut off this source of revenue.
Secondly, the current UN arms embargo on Sudan is extremely limited and poorly enforced. The easy availability of weapons and military equipment in the region reflects a broader problem in the international system, which prioritizes the profits of arms manufacturers and dealers over the security and lives of people.
The international community can and must do more to counter the militarization of entire societies and promote peaceful methods of conflict resolution.
In other words, building peace requires action on multiple levels. While we can learn from past successes and failures, it is crucial to think creatively about peace. This may be daunting and time-consuming, but it can lead to more sustainable peace. The people affected by war and its terrible consequences, in Sudan and elsewhere, need this commitment.
Senior Lecturer in International Law, University of Australia
