It is quite clear that beyond an inherent obsession with Ukraine, the United States and its NATO allies have lost sight of intractable conflicts globally. The fixation on countering Russia has sidelined brewing tensions, rampant discord, pronounced acrimonies, guerilla warfare, and breakdowns of social systems in both Asia and Africa. The months-long Sudanese conflict is no different, as American-backed media outlets turn a blind eye to simmering tensions in one of Africa’s most important states while promoting venom against China and Russia. For Sudan, the road ahead remains tough but talks in Jeddah offer a glimmer of hope. 

The talks come as two warring parties, the Sudanese government and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) remain embroiled in three months of fighting which has resulted in a debilitating refugee crisis, a breakdown in an already fragile economic situation, and widespread suffering for the civilian population. 3 million people have been uprooted as a result of the violence while 700,000 have fled to neighboring states such as Chad. As a result of brutal urban warfare and looting which is concentrated in cities such as Khartoum, 1.7 million people have fled the capital with millions more staying in the city amid shelling, artillery blasts, and gun battles. Recipient countries on the other hand are encountering further economic strain as a result of the influx of refugees.  

In light of these multidimensional, harrowing quagmires, it is important to note that previous talks due to be held in Saudi Arabia were suspended by Riyadh and Washington D.C. in June 2023 due to repeated ceasefire violations from both sides. While the suspension of talks subject to de-escalation is a workable strategy, the glaring inability to address the root causes of the conflict has also prolonged the impasse. Talks that are result-oriented and immediately address the concerns of the RSF and the Sudanese government through an established framework is the need of the hour. Equally important to note is that a previous mediation attempt launched by Egypt was welcomed by both sides given that the RSF and Sudanese government representatives share a close bond with Cairo. The mistrust of American objectives is dynamic and must be factored in while attempting to resolve the Sudanese conflict. 

It is clear from the receptivity to previous proposals and the failure of others, that Sudan needs an indigenous solution to the conflict in the absence of binary approaches from mediating states. Siding with one stakeholder at the expense of the other has only resulted in havoc and chaos in regions such as North Africa which have borne the brunt of unwarranted US military interventions. Libya’s case is a classic example of foreign policy failures resulting in social breakdowns as military action in the absence of dialogue resulted in the demise of the Muammar Gaddafi regime and left Tripoli with nothing but terrorism, instability, and discord. 

Sudan cannot afford a similar situation. A political vacuum is precisely what terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda exploit for political and military gains. African history is awash with such instances which has resulted in the Sub-Saharan region being one of the most dangerous places in the world today. What is encouraging, however, is that the Sudanese government delegation in Jeddah marks a return to diplomacy and sincerity from Khartoum which has otherwise been apprehensive about talks with the RSF. This has not always been the case. One should recall that Khartoum boycotted the East Africa regional bloc’s Intergovernmental Authority (IGAD). The rationale cited for boycotting the IGAD platform in Ethiopia is that Kenya’s President, William Ruto was heading the quartet and hence, there was a conflict of interest as Nairobi sided with the RSF. Such binaries need to be avoided for both sides to be taken into confidence and talks to have a meaningful impact. 

The role of regional organizations such as the African Union is equally pivotal in this regard. Sudan’s Neighboring Countries Summit which included Egyptian President Abed Al-Fattah, Chairperson of the African  Union Commission, Moussa Faki, and Secretary General of the Arab League, Ahmad Abu Al- Ghaith for example, pushed for the implementation of an executive plan that includes practical solutions while opening up channels of communication. This is precisely what is needed. While there is little doubt that countries such as Saudi Arabia exert considerable regional influence in the Maghreb and Sub-Saharan Africa, the lack of indigenization of the narrative on Sudan could prove to be counterproductive in the long run. 

Opportunities continue to arise with Mohammed Hamad Dagalo, the commander of the RSF previously announcing the formation of a committee to open up lines of communication with both political powers as well as armed movements within the country about the ongoing, months-long crisis. Similarly, in a statement posted on Twitter, Dagalo has also affirmed the RSF’s commitment to dialogue, reach a comprehensive political solution, and address the lingering impasse which centers on grievances such as the probable reintegration of the RSF into the national army’s fold. 

Hence, previous efforts from African, Arab, and international parties to mediate the conflict not yielding the desired results is dangerous for Sudan as it could erode confidence in a probable negotiated solution. Similarly, while US and Saudi Arabia-sponsored talks in Jeddah have led to considerable optimism, it remains to be seen as to whether such exercises would yield results that benefit Sudan in the long run.