Sudan’s game plan aims to avoid political and military pitfalls as ceasefire talks stall

As expected, the decision by the Sudanese government not to join the negotiations in Geneva was met with a chorus of criticism, not least from the political forces who accused it of forgoing an ideal opportunity to secure a lasting peace. Some of the strongest criticism came from the veteran politician Mubarak Al-Mahdi, of the Ummah Party. He called the decision a “significant diplomatic failure” that could jeopardise efforts to end Sudan’s civil war.

The central demands of the Geneva conference appeared at face value to be perfectly reasonable, not least the demand to ensure the safe delivery of humanitarian aid to tens of thousands of Sudanese facing starvation. However, according to analysts, it seems that behind every demand is an apparent anomaly or a hidden caveat.

Observers were somewhat sceptical about the seriousness of the US negotiator’s stated objective to provide aid to the people of Sudan.

The anomaly appeared in the insistence on entering the areas occupied by the Rapid Support Forces, which undoubtedly need humanitarian aid, but there did not appear to be the same willingness to provide aid to Sudanese further afield. The fear of the Sudan government remains the possibility of the RSF using the aid corridors to smuggle arms. According to one commentator, Abu Amar, “The US and the international community have so far ignored the stranded Sudanese citizens who crossed into Ethiopia and others in parts of Chad. They have no food, water or shelter. In response to the painful exodus we see on social media, nobody is answering them or helping them.”

To some extent the opening of the Adre crossing between Chad and Sudan for the supply of aid supervised by the Qatari government for the next three months has partly addressed the relief demands in Darfur, for the moment. The move has been welcomed by aid agencies and governments, including the Norwegian Minister of International Development, Anne Beathe Kristiansen Tvinnereim. “The reopening of several border crossings is needed to ensure delivery of sufficient levels of humanitarian aid,” said Tvinnereim. “Flooding in parts of the country underlines the need for opening more access routes to reach civilians in need.”

READ: UN awaits Khartoum’s green light to deliver aid to Sudan via Chad

However, a hidden caveat surfaced at the suggestion that a peace-keeping force led by the US could be deployed. The suggestion was not only rejected out of hand by the Sudan government, but it also drew comment from Russia and China in the UN Security Council. Chinese Ambassador to the UN Dai Bing rejected the supply of humanitarian aid as a means to apply pressure on the Sudan government or the RSF militia. “It is essential to coordinate the need for humanitarian aid with the relevant Sudanese authorities,” said the ambassador. “This should be used to provide relief and not as a means to impose restrictions [on the Sudan government] or sanctions.”

The other demand which was stressed at the outset of the talks was the execution of the key points agreed in the Jeddah talks May 2023. One of these was the removal of the RSF from private homes and public institutions. The government welcomed that commitment, but the hidden condition appeared to be the preparedness to allow the RSF to return to its position as a paramilitary force as it was before the outbreak of the war on 15 April last year. Such a proposal has been totally rejected by the Sudan government. This suggestion was described by another commentator as, “An arrangement similar to allowing the RSF to leave through the front door and to return comfortably through the open window.”

Perhaps the most troubling condition was the insistence that the UAE should have observer status at the talks.

Given that the UAE is not a neighbouring country, and does not enjoy membership of regional organisations such as the African Union or IGAD, its inclusion was an oddity as far as the Sudan government was concerned. Legal experts were quick to point out that the inclusion of the UAE with observer status in Geneva would jeopardise Sudan’s claim that the UAE had intervened illegally to support the RSF or, in the worst-case scenario, may invalidate the legitimacy of its appeal scheduled to be submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Days after Sudan refused to meet with the RSF in Geneva, the Sudan government delegation was invited to further talks with the US Special Envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, in Cairo. According to sources, the meeting was postponed yesterday after the Sudan delegation refused to remove the head of the government side, Mohamed Bashir Abu Nammu. He is a member of a party led by Arko Minawi, who joined the Sudanese government following  the signing of the Juba Peace Agreement, on 3 October, 2020. It appears to be a deliberate choice by the government as a way to demonstrate solidarity with the former rebel groups.

The meeting has now been postponed indefinitely. It’s fairly clear that the United States has been unable to cajole Sudan to respond solely on Washington’s terms. The reason appears to be the solidarity of the various factions who are standing together with the government against the RSF. It remains to be seen if this degree of unity will continue, or if cracks will appear that will ruin the current political and military game plan.

READ: UAE ramps up humanitarian aid to Sudan amid ongoing conflict

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.