The Quartet and the War in Sudan: Top-Down Initiative or Genuine Path to Peace?

By Dr. Haider Al-Badri

Since mid-April 2023, the ongoing war in Sudan has left hundreds of thousands dead and displaced millions, prompting a series of international initiatives by actors claiming to seek an end to the conflict. Among them is the so-called “Quartet Plan,” launched by the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. The initiative, which called for a humanitarian truce and a political roadmap, has sparked heated debate — with some viewing it as an opportunity for peace, and others dismissing it as a top-down intervention that undermines the will and sovereignty of the Sudanese people.

Let us examine this initiative through the lens of reality and reason.

Announced in September 2025 after intensive consultations between the foreign ministers of the four countries, the Quartet Plan is built on three main pillars: an initial three-month humanitarian truce, a call for a ceasefire, and the launch of a comprehensive nine-month transitional process culminating in the formation of a broadly legitimate civilian government. The Quartet’s statement affirmed that “Sudan’s political future must be decided by its own people through an inclusive and transparent transitional process, free from the control of any of the warring parties.”

But who exactly are these “warring parties”?

Despite the diplomatic tone, a closer reading of the statement reveals that it was far from a routine expression of concern. Rather, it carried multiple political signals that must be understood within the broader context of regional geopolitics and the intertwined interests of international and regional powers. The Quartet is not a random coalition—it is a bloc of influential states with direct stakes in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. Its neutrality, therefore, is open to question.

In response to this controversial initiative, the Sudanese government reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to sovereignty and legitimacy. In a clear statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed that “the Government of Sudan welcomes any regional or international effort that supports its mission to end the war, but rejects any intervention that fails to respect the sovereignty of the state, its legitimate institutions, and its right to defend the people and the land. The government also rejects any attempt to equate it with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).”

Is that not a fair position?

This stance reflects Sudan’s categorical rejection of attempts to equate the Sudanese Armed Forces—the state’s legitimate institution—with the RSF, which the government describes as a rebel militia. Moreover, some members of the Quartet are morally unfit to serve as mediators, given their alleged role in supplying the RSF with weapons, funds, and mercenaries.

Supporters of the army insist that any credible peace process must include accountability for RSF leaders responsible for atrocities committed against the Sudanese people. Over the past 30 months, the war has claimed more than 150,000 lives and forced some 15 million people to flee their homes, leaving behind widespread destruction of infrastructure.

Human rights reports continue to document grave violations by the RSF against civilians—indiscriminate shelling of densely populated areas, ethnically targeted killings in Khartoum and Darfur, and the systematic use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. These abuses place a moral and legal burden on the international community. The UN Human Rights Council has called for “a ceasefire, the creation of an independent international monitoring mechanism, and the referral of those responsible for crimes against civilians to the International Criminal Court.”

Behind this devastating war lie multiple regional interventions, with several countries accused of directly or indirectly supporting the RSF. The Quartet itself acknowledged in its statement that “foreign military assistance to the parties in Sudan contributes to prolonging the conflict and destabilizing the region.”

Yet herein lies the contradiction: the Quartet includes states that have, at various times, offered political or logistical backing to one side or another. This inconsistency casts doubt on their impartiality and fuels widespread suspicion that the Quartet’s initiative is an attempt to re-engineer Sudan’s political landscape and secure control over its strategic location and abundant natural resources.

The Sudanese people believe that the future of their nation must be determined internally—through a comprehensive Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue, not under international or regional tutelage. National forces aligned with the army reject what they describe as “externally imposed political engineering designed to empower certain groups while excluding others.”

Lessons from Sudan’s past confirm that political settlements that ignore justice inevitably collapse. Any initiative that fails to include a clear mechanism for accountability will only produce a fragile and temporary lull in violence—another short-lived truce destined to repeat the failures of past agreements.

The Sudanese people, who have paid a staggering price in blood, resources, and dignity, demand their full and rightful due: the elimination of the rebellion, the removal of the RSF and its political backers from the national scene, the prosecution of militia leaders for their crimes, and the preservation of state sovereignty and legitimate institutions. That is the only path toward a just and lasting peace, not a humiliating surrender that repeats the tragedies of the past and lays the groundwork for future conflicts.

Who could ever accept such a criminal militia?
Who could accept Hamdok and his treacherous clique?
How can we coexist with those who killed our sons, destroyed our homes, displaced us, and violated our dignity? How can we negotiate with murderers and perpetrators of atrocities? How can we forget what happened in Al-Jazira, Darfur, Kordofan, River Nile, Sennar, and countless other towns and villages?

The army’s leadership understands this well. It knows that the Sudanese people will neither forget nor forgive the RSF’s monstrous crimes. Any complacency after the sacrifices and victories of recent months would be intolerable.

This people and their armed forces have endured, besieged and weakened, when the RSF was at its peak. And they will continue to endure—until the rebellion is crushed or surrenders.

The Quartet is welcome only if it serves the aspirations of the Sudanese people and their armed forces by ending the rebellion once and for all and bringing its leaders to justice.

Otherwise —
the Quartet can go to hell.