Sudan Ceasefire Row Deepens as Khartoum Demands Sanctions

Ce qu’il faut retenir

Khartoum has formally turned down a United States proposal aimed at silencing the guns in Sudan, insisting that no negotiations are possible with the Rapid Support Forces. The Sudanese government brands the RSF a genocidal militia and requests its classification as a terrorist organisation. Washington’s initiative now hangs in the balance as regional capitals weigh their next moves.

Sudanese position: no dialogue with RSF

Speaking on national television, Defence Minister Yassin Ibrahim declared that “the only viable path is the dissolution of the RSF and accountability for its commanders.” Echoing that line in Nairobi, Ambassador Mohamed Osman Akasha described the group as “an international network of profiteers in uniform” and argued that any ceasefire must begin with its dismantlement, not with political talks.

Washington’s peace push hits resistance

Since September, US envoy Massad Boulos has held rounds of shuttle diplomacy with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to refine a truce blueprint. The draft reportedly offered phased disengagement, humanitarian corridors and a pathway to inclusive dialogue. Khartoum’s outright rejection now forces Washington either to revise the proposal or to rally partners behind coercive steps toward the RSF.

Regional actors walk a diplomatic tightrope

Cairo remains wary of any settlement that might empower paramilitary factions along its southern border. Riyadh favours a negotiated exit to stabilise Red Sea shipping lanes. Abu Dhabi, accused by a UN panel in January of providing logistical and financial support to the RSF, denies wrongdoing yet faces growing scrutiny. Each capital’s calculus complicates joint pressure on the warring parties.

Accusations against the UAE sharpen tensions

Ambassador Akasha castigated what he called the “cowardice” of the international community for sidestepping alleged Emirati involvement. He warned that continued arms flows could regionalise the conflict, citing the recruitment of foreign fighters from Chad and the Central African Republic. The Sudanese statement adds diplomatic heat on Abu Dhabi, already eager to project itself as a pragmatic mediator in the Red Sea basin.

Humanitarian consequences mount

UN agencies estimate that over seven million people have been displaced since clashes erupted in April 2023. Essential supplies into Khartoum and Darfur are sporadic, and cross-border aid corridors via South Sudan and Egypt remain fragile. Humanitarian officials fear that the current impasse will prolong urban sieges, deepen food insecurity and erode already scarce health services as the planting season approaches.

Egypt’s balancing act

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi supports Sudan’s state institutions yet relies on Gulf funding that could be jeopardised by overt confrontation with the UAE. Cairo encourages negotiations in Jeddah but shares Khartoum’s distrust of the RSF. Analysts in the African Centre for Strategic Studies note that Egypt could leverage its influence over Sudan’s regular army to keep a lid on further escalation.

Saudi Arabia’s mediation calculus

Riyadh previously co-chaired talks that produced May 2023’s short-lived ceasefire. Officials familiar with the process say Saudi Arabia still hopes for a diplomatic dividend, viewing stability in Sudan as vital for Vision 2030 maritime projects. Yet without a unified Arab position on sanctions or terror designations, Saudi efforts risk being undercut by competing agendas among its closest partners.

Washington’s limited toolbox

The White House insists it is “actively engaged,” but US leverage is constrained. Sanctions against individual RSF leaders announced in September have had marginal effect on battlefield dynamics. An expanded penalties regime would require coordination with EU and Gulf allies, many of whom prefer maintaining discreet channels to both Khartoum and the RSF for commercial and security reasons.

Scenarios for Khartoum’s next move

If external pressure fails to curb RSF operations, Sudan’s government may escalate requests for heavier weapons from sympathetic neighbours, further militarising the conflict. Alternatively, a narrowly framed humanitarian truce, excluding formal talks with the RSF, could test confidence while preserving Khartoum’s red-lines. Continued stalemate, however, risks entrenching frontlines and fracturing state authority beyond the capital.

Wider continental implications

The battle for Sudan reverberates across the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, where fluid alliances exploit porous borders. African Union diplomats caution that unresolved disputes over energy corridors and refugee flows could ripple into CEMAC and IGAD agendas. A durable solution, they argue, requires synchronising punitive measures against spoilers with incentives for institutional reform in Khartoum.

Endgame unknown but urgency clear

Khartoum’s rejection of the US-sponsored truce underscores a stark reality: without consensus on how to treat the RSF, diplomacy may default to managing, rather than resolving, Sudan’s war. Whether regional powers can align behind sanctions, mediation or a hybrid approach will determine if the ceasefire row becomes a turning point or just another missed opportunity in Africa’s evolving security landscape.