Why the Warring Parties in Sudan Refuse to Negotiate

Peace negotiations in Sudan didn’t collapse — they never even happened

Sudan’s warring parties have never sat for substantive peace negotiations, apart from a handful of meetings in Jeddah at the outset of the war. Those talks produced only days-long ceasefires that were repeatedly violated, and a shared “declaration of commitment to protect civilians,” which is now widely viewed as a meaningless, performative paper commitment.

Indirect, informal, or secret talks have taken place several times, but these initiatives did nothing to quell the violence. Despite efforts by various mediators or would-be mediators — the East African bloc IGAD, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and others — the conflict has proven intractable, with no signs that either party is ready even to sit for a meeting, let alone agree to a full peace deal.

What explains the reluctance of the two sides to negotiate after nearly three full years of war, even as the battlefield situation remains largely stalemated?

This article examines the political considerations that are prolonging the conflict. Observers may differ over how much weight to assign to each factor. Taken together, they represent the most salient explanations, which are widely discussed or implicit in the discourse around the war.