Ahmad 
In a new indication of Washington’s strategy in the African continent, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called on the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces to hold peace talks in Switzerland on August 14.
The call comes after the failure of indirect talks in Geneva last month to alleviate humanitarian suffering. The path of negotiation between the parties to the Sudanese conflict has reached a critical stage, especially since the countries of the region have tried to limit the conflict, as Saudi Arabia launched the “Jeddah” initiative, which can be considered the initial agreement that brought together the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces.
But the Jeddah ceasefire agreement, in which the United States participated, collapsed quickly, and in return the map of the conflict and control of the geography changed for both parties. Blinken’s new call seems to be an attempt to regain the initiative, amid doubts about the American ability to achieve even a small success, given the complexity of the Sudanese situation, in addition to the US administration’s preoccupation with the election campaign.
Talks of wasted time
The US Secretary of State’s call came in a “humanitarian form”, as the official statement spoke of “the extent of death, suffering and destruction in Sudan”, although the humanitarian crisis in Sudan has reached a painful reality with the displacement of about ten million people, the death of thousands, in addition to the destruction of Sudan’s infrastructure with the risk of famine.
But the conflict that began in April 2023 between the Sudanese army led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemedti,” cannot be addressed within the framework of a humanitarian crisis alone. It is linked to a deep political situation at the level of the entire Nile Basin. Today’s conflict is a reflection of a long struggle that began with the secession of South Sudan from its north, and also carried the Darfur region crisis, which is directly linked to the current conflict.
Amidst this political entanglement, the American call comes at “lost time” as the American administration does not have enough time to manage the crisis, and at the same time it is trying to present its call within the “humanitarian commitment” despite the fact that it has moved far away from the course of the conflict, and allowed its repercussions to reach the current reality of suffering where humanitarian organizations are unable to alleviate the effects of the crisis, and regardless of what the American call may carry, it is clear that it does not carry with it a new vision because it was launched from outside the framework of politics and seemed as if it was issued by a humanitarian organization and not by the American administration.
A new American initiative: Are there chances for success?
In the general form of the initiative, it does not carry anything new within the framework of the mechanisms that have been announced. It primarily attempts to place the responsibility on the African Union by involving it as an observer of the ceasefire process, but in return it also places a regional dimension by expanding the monitoring process through Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, in addition to the role of the United Nations as observers to grant international legitimacy to any agreement that may be reached. This monitoring mechanism carries with it two basic problems:
- The first is the political contradiction of the participating countries, especially with the presence of the Emirates, which the Sudanese army is directly accusing of providing assistance to the Rapid Support Forces.
Certainly, Egypt or the African Union in general can represent neutral parties, but the American attempt wants to put regional policies towards Sudan in one direction. The conflicting interests of the participating parties in the current conflict seem clear, and the inclusion of the United Arab Emirates in particular seems contradictory to the African context in which the solution to the crisis should proceed.
- The second problem is the ability to influence the parties to the conflict in Sudan, as they did not comply with the Security Council resolution to cease fire, and the lack of concern for this resolution stems from the fact that the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces know in advance that the major powers influencing the Security Council are not prepared to exert real pressure to implement the UN resolution. The question that accompanies the American initiative is: Is Washington prepared to pressure to make the initiative a success? Especially on its allies who support the parties to the conflict?
Practically, the United States does not currently have the ability to take the initiative at a time when it is witnessing an acceleration towards the presidential elections, and it presented its invitation as if it were a continuation of the Jeddah talks, and it is not enough here for the conflicting parties to welcome the initiative because it is still based on a fragile political foundation.
The American invitation faces a fundamental challenge in the coldness that appeared from the Sudanese army towards the negotiations, as while the Rapid Support Forces rushed to accept what the United States is proposing, the Sudanese army does not seem enthusiastic, based primarily on indicators of the field reality, and it is also awaiting international and regional reactions.
Just as the timing of the initiative presents an image of the United States seeking to achieve diplomatic success that it can benefit from in the elections to confront Donald Trump and his presidential campaign, the initiative is a “review of the American diplomatic inaction” in dealing with the Sudanese crisis since the military coup in October 2021.
Prospects for a solution and peace
The American call only provides indications of international interest in the need to end the war in Sudan as soon as possible. There is a diplomatic effort that goes beyond the United States to put an end to the conflict due to its disastrous consequences at the regional and international levels. The repercussions of what is happening are spreading rapidly and affecting all countries in the region, and at the same time changing political trends in most of the African continent, and it carries with it forms of illegal immigration that reach the shores of Europe.
Certainly, Washington has strong pressure cards on the Sudanese parties, but it cannot use them separately from regional and international consensus. The war in Sudan cannot be stopped based on looking only at the humanitarian dimension, because there are international interests that also need to be considered, especially since Sudan, with its geographical location, affects the main sea lane towards Europe (the Red Sea), and is adjacent to countries that carry political weight such as Egypt. The solution in Sudan cannot appear only on an American vision that is trying to gather some threads of the conflict only.
According to all indicators, the American call remains a lost step, even if it can achieve temporary and limited results, because it wants to monopolize the solution and preempt the political acceleration that limits its influence in many African countries.
By Mazen Bilal
Sudan.. Free kitchens stopped in the south of the Belt due to lack of funding