African Truce in Sudan: A New Test for the Will of Warring Parties

The African Union (AU) has called for an immediate humanitarian truce in Sudan to pave the way for a ceasefire and the launch of a comprehensive Sudanese dialogue. This comes at a time when analysts’ assessments vary regarding the initiative’s chances of success and its potential acceptance by the conflicting parties.

Sudanese writer and political researcher Mohamed Torshin believes the AU’s call is part of repeated efforts to stop the war and aligns with the “Silencing the Guns in Africa 2030” initiative.

However, speaking to the program Beyond the News, Torshin expressed doubt that the Union possesses sufficient tools to implement its vision, pointing to differing positions within the AU regarding the characterization of the war and the mechanisms for its resolution.

He noted that the multiplicity of platforms and initiatives might prolong the conflict, as the two warring parties the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are betting on the military track as a decisive factor to gain leverage in any future negotiations.

Torshin concluded that field data, specifically the progress made by the army on several fronts, influences the government’s adherence to its own initiative, while the issue of “legitimacy” remains a major obstacle to signing any agreement.

The Government’s Option

Sudanese Prime Minister Kamel Idris reaffirmed his government’s commitment to its initiative to stop the war, which he claims enjoys support from institutions including the AU and the UN. This statement came on the eve of an announcement by Massad Boulos, advisor to the U.S. President, confirming that the U.S. is in contact with both parties to reach a consensual solution.

A Different Call

On his part, analyst and African affairs researcher Noureddine Abda emphasized that the AU’s call intersects with proposals from the “Quartet” and the United States. It is based on a humanitarian truce followed by a Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue process aimed at rebuilding the state.

Abda argued that what is different this time is an increasing realization that the African Union must return to lead the resolution process, asserting that any binding settlement must pass through its corridors.

He stressed that the African vision is built on the conviction that there is no military solution, even if one side appears to be advancing on the ground. He warned of the continuation of a “proxy war” if both parties are not convinced of the futility of the military option.

Washington’s Position

Thomas Warrick, a former U.S. State Department official, indicated that Washington is working on two tracks: bringing the parties together to end the war and pushing external powers supporting both sides to exercise real influence.

Warrick confirmed that while sanctions may be used, they often have limited impact. He explained that cutting off the flow of funding and military support from relevant capitals is more effective than punitive measures alone. He concluded that peace in Sudan depends more on the decisions of countries financing and arming the conflict parties than on internal movements alone.