Sudan’s Humanitarian Truce Efforts Falter as Rival Forces Pursue Battlefield Gains

Efforts to establish humanitarian truces in Sudan are again faltering as the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) continue to prioritise military objectives over temporary pauses in the fighting.

The United States has reportedly renewed calls for a 90-day humanitarian truce and access for emergency aid. Washington and other international and regional actors are also supporting direct negotiations and localised humanitarian pauses through the Aligned for Advancing Lifesaving and Peace in Sudan (ALPS) initiative in Geneva.

The initiative includes the United States, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the United Nations and the African Union. However, the proposal has not become an implemented agreement, while the two factions continue to reject or violate ceasefire efforts.

Earlier initiatives failed

The Jeddah Declaration of May 2023, mediated and guaranteed by the United States and Saudi Arabia, temporarily enabled limited humanitarian access. It later collapsed after repeated violations by both sides.

Separate regional efforts involving the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the African Union also failed after localised, short-term truces broke down.

The repeated failures have deepened concern over Sudan’s humanitarian emergency. The United Nations has warned that the country’s humanitarian system is on the brink of collapse. The war, which began in April 2023 after months of tensions between the SAF and RSF, has expanded into 13 of Sudan’s 18 states and forcibly displaced 14 million people, according to the supplied background information. Tens of thousands have been killed, while the conflict has contributed to one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, including cases of starvation.

Competing battlefield claims

Recent military claims have further complicated diplomatic efforts. The SAF has claimed gains in South Kordofan, while Al Jazeera sources reported that the army had repelled an RSF attack in Blue Nile state. The RSF, meanwhile, claimed a major victory over the army and its allies in Abu Qauod, west of El Obeid.

The claims have not been independently verified and illustrate the competing narratives surrounding the conflict. Analysts say the continued failure of truces is also linked to the political ambitions of SAF leader Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and RSF head Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti.

Sudanese academic and Al-Wasat editor-in-chief Fathi Abu Ammar argued that the military leadership was deliberately delaying negotiations in order to preserve its hold on power. He told Al Jazeera that peace initiatives serving Sudanese civilians had been rejected by the army, al-Burhan and SAF Chief of Staff Yasser al-Atta.

Mohammed Ibrahim al-Rashid, director of the Center for International Political Relations Studies, offered a different assessment, saying the RSF was facing a comprehensive defeat and that an SAF victory would end the war. He described the RSF’s position as a diplomatic defeat and said military advances could eventually create conditions for a peace settlement.

Disagreement over diplomatic pressure

Experts cited in the reporting believe international diplomatic efforts to end the war are essentially dead. Cameron Hudson, a former adviser to the US envoy to Sudan, said pressure-based diplomacy had not succeeded and that the United States had not sufficiently used incentives to encourage peace.

“There is no military solution to this conflict,” US Senior Advisor for Arab and African Affairs Massad Boulos said after committing $375 million to humanitarian efforts in Sudan.

Hudson argued that applying punitive measures while excluding the warring parties from negotiations was counterproductive. He said neither faction was likely to stop fighting until its position at the end of the war became clearer.

With the humanitarian system under severe strain, international actors continue to pursue temporary pauses. But the history of failed agreements, unresolved political ambitions and conflicting assessments of the battlefield leaves the reported 90-day proposal facing significant obstacles.