International Arenas and Flawed Diplomacy

By Mohamed Suleiman El-Shazly

With all these conferences—at times absent-minded, at others excessive—where is Sudan being led?

In April of last year, without inviting the Sudanese government, France, Germany, and the European Union organized a conference in Paris under the banner of “Supporting Sudan and Neighboring Countries.” The sessions focused on the need to stop the fighting, respect international humanitarian law, and ensure the unhindered delivery of aid. Donors pledged over 2 billion euros, including about 900 million euros from the EU. However, the conference ended in failure. The gathering hosted in Paris did not succeed in halting military operations on the ground, nor was there any visible impact of the pledged funds. Needless to say, the essential aid did not reach the Sudanese people.

The Paris Conference was one of many, followed by yet more. The latest was the London Conference, held on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. The absence of direct Sudanese representation raised serious questions—both before and during the event—regarding the legitimacy and value of its outcomes. International response was extremely weak. One of the most controversial points was the participation of the United Arab Emirates, which was accused of supporting the Rapid Support Forces. Accordingly, the Sudanese government criticized the UK for inviting the UAE while excluding the Sudanese Armed Forces, calling it a diplomatic blunder that would only complicate efforts to reach a reasonable mediation and solution to the conflict.

Efforts by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy to persuade Arab countries to agree on a set of diplomatic principles for forming a future contact group yielded no tangible results. The UK stressed that the conference was not meant to be a mediation initiative or a platform for pledging aid, but rather an attempt to build broader political consensus on Sudan’s future among countries with vested interests.

Thus, the London Conference became yet another episode in a series of international attempts to resolve the Sudanese crisis. However, like its predecessors, it concluded in failure by the end of Tuesday. Excluding the Sudanese government from the UK-hosted conference was a deliberate omission that negatively affected diplomatic efforts to find a resolution to the war. Indeed, the organizers insisted on excluding the government from the conference held in London on April 15, 2025.

The declared goal—like those of previous conferences—was to coordinate efforts to end the war tearing apart Sudan’s social fabric and to ease the suffering of its people. Although the conference was jointly coordinated by the UK, EU, France, and Germany, and attended by diplomats and humanitarian organizations, all eyes were fixed on the absent party: the Sudanese government. Many asserted that achieving a comprehensive political solution would be impossible without its participation. Had the host nation shown more diplomatic generosity, we might have witnessed a turning point in efforts to stop a war that has raged for two years.

Ironically, during the conference sessions, violations increased, particularly following unprovoked attacks on the Zamzam camp. UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned these attacks, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and all necessary actions to facilitate a return to political negotiations. Guterres has repeatedly affirmed that violence against civilians is prohibited under international law and emphasized the need for a comprehensive political process to restore stability in Sudan.

The Arab world was not silent. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt condemned the attacks, stressing the importance of halting them to uphold international humanitarian values and protect civilians.

Due to the absence of a final communiqué, David Lammy and his counterparts from France, Germany, the African Union, and the EU issued a joint call to support efforts toward a peaceful solution and reject anything that would prolong the war, including foreign interference, which inevitably escalates diplomatic tensions and fuels ongoing battles. They urged the international community to commit to a solution that would not lead to Sudan’s fragmentation.

Lammy opened the conference with a hopeful tone, stating:
“Many have abandoned Sudan—and that must not happen. It is a grave moral failure to witness civilians beheaded, one-year-old children subjected to sexual violence, and a staggering number of starving people—more than anywhere else in the world. We cannot turn a blind eye. Know that, even now, civilians and aid workers in El Fasher and Zamzam camp are experiencing unimaginable violence. The greatest obstacle isn’t lack of funding or UN resolutions—it’s the absence of political will. We must convince the warring parties to protect civilians and allow humanitarian aid to enter and reach all parts of the country. Peace must be our collective priority.”

Thus, in the context of the Paris Conference and prior international and regional meetings, the London Conference was held. Yet it failed to reach even a final communiqué—a failure more eloquent than any words. The day-long discussions aimed at forming a contact group from Middle Eastern countries to lead diplomatic efforts instead of fueling conflict did not end in consensus.

From the start, organizers struggled to draft a neutral closing statement acceptable to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE regarding Sudan’s future. The UAE insisted on an immediate transition to civilian government, while Egypt and Saudi Arabia emphasized the need to end the fighting first before addressing governance.

Undoubtedly, the London Conference failed to make tangible diplomatic progress. The exclusion of the Sudanese government, regional divisions, and the absence of a consistent initiative all underscored the significant obstacles still impeding a fair and lasting peace.

Going forward, the Sudanese government must be included in any potential negotiations, as it is the only party capable of contributing to practical, implementable recommendations. Without a doubt, no real progress can be achieved in its absence. Past experiences have proven that excluding the Sudanese government from such conferences has led only to failure.

Moreover, the international community must prioritize emergency plans to protect civilians and strive for a sustainable political solution that addresses the root causes of the crisis—not just its symptoms.

Any future meeting or conference that fails to take serious, actionable steps will be like a stamp with no ink on a torn paper titled: “Flawed Diplomacy.” The international community must assume its responsibilities and take practical steps toward change. The opportunity still exists—but it won’t last forever. No political solution will be meaningful unless the active party is involved.

mohsulieman@gmail.com