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.
Reasons Shared by Both Warring Parties
Internal power dynamics: Hardline elements within the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) harshly criticize or even threaten the leadership whenever negotiations are considered. SAF and RSF leaders fear being toppled by rivals if they appear weak or conciliatory. Their fears of internal criticism far outweigh their fear of the diplomatic consequences of disengagement.
Prevalence of warmongering voices on social media: The information environment is important in shaping public opinion. The warring parties invest heavily in producing and spreading war propaganda that inflames emotions and justifies the continuation of the war. Relatedly, the algorithms of social media platforms often amplify the most divisive voices; pro-war posts go viral while pro-peace messages, neutral analysis, and third-party voices are usually drowned out.
Incompatible war aims: The two main parties to Sudan’s conflict previously shared power, for about a year after jointly toppling Sudan’s civilian government in a coup in 2021. However, now they embrace maximalist war aims that are incompatible with each other.