Donald Trump pledges to tackle Sudan atrocities

Sudan, ravaged by war for two and a half years, is in ruins. Half a dozen peace attempts failed; none could pressure or persuade regional power brokers to compromise.

Many Sudanese ask whether the world cares whether they live or die.

Could that be about to change with direct intervention from the Oval Office?

As US President Donald Trump has admitted, the conflict “wasn’t on his list of things to get involved in. I just thought it was something crazy and out of control.”

But that was before the White House meeting with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman 10 days ago. He told the president what was happening and asked him to intervene.

Trump then said: “We’re going to start working on Sudan.”

He later posted on social media, “There are tremendous atrocities taking place in Sudan. It has become the most violent place in the world,” and vowed to work with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to end the violence.

In fact, the United States was already involved in the negotiations, but perhaps Trump’s personal influence over the leaders of these allies, all of whom are accused of supporting one side or another in Sudan, could make a difference.

With nearly 12 million people displaced from their homes and famine conditions persisting in some parts of the country, Sudanese are desperate for anything, anything, that can break the impasse.

Trump’s comments on the situation came just days after the civil war reached a new level of horror in late October.

After a 500-day hunger siege, paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured the city of al-Fasher, the army’s last stronghold in Darfur’s westernmost region.

RSF fighters rampaged through the city, killing, raping and pillaging. Estimates of the number of deaths in this ethnically targeted massacre are more than 5,000.

Cellphone footage of killers abusing, torturing and killing victims – known as “reward videos” – spread on social media.

The war leaders’ stance following the murder followed a long-standing pattern.

After capturing Al-Fasher, RSF chief General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemedti”, announced that he would be ready for a ceasefire. He wanted to polish the reputation tarnished by the mass murder.

But Sudanese generals, upset by battlefield humiliations, were not ready to compromise.

The leader of the UN-recognized government, Armed Forces Commander General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, rejected the ceasefire and vowed to continue fighting.

Burhan, and especially the Islamists in his own camp, are now in a fighting mood and describe the RSF as a terrorist group that must be completely defeated.

Hemedti openly offers compromise. But the cruelty of their troops tells a different story, and few people in the cities they plundered would consider living under their rule.

When defeated, army commanders continually vow to avenge their losses and regain their pride. When they win, they insist they can get the job done.

During 40 years of wars in South Sudan, Darfur and elsewhere, this mentality meant Sudanese leaders rejected peace formulas offered by mediators.

This is the pattern Trump needs to break as the country faces de facto division.

Regional states support different sides in the war.

Egypt and Türkiye increased the supply of weapons to the Sudanese army. Saudi Arabia also welcomes the army.

Multiple reports from investigative journalists and intelligence agencies indicate that the UAE is arming the RSF and reportedly increasing its supplies. The UAE has always denied this.

The first step towards peace is for key states in the region to stop fueling the fire and use their influence for peace.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and senior advisor for Africa Massad Boulos have been working on a plan for six months.

They formed the “Quad”, consisting of the US plus Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and drafted a plan that included three key elements:

• truce
• access to humanitarian aid
• Negotiations to form a government headed by civilians continue.

The four confirmed the plan in September and met again in Washington last month. However, he could not fully bridge the gap between the warring parties in Sudan, and the RSF subsequently attacked al-Fasher.

It seems that Bin Salman’s appeal to Trump gives much more weight to the Quad plan.

The only person who can intervene with UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and persuade him to change course is the US president.

The problem is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are in fierce competition for influence in the Arab world, including countries such as Yemen and Syria, as well as Sudan.

A contest to see who will be the leading power in the Arabian peninsula.

The two also have policy differences, particularly on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. While Saudi Arabia may tolerate Islamists as long as they do not have a leading role, the UAE considers it a terrorist organization.

Because Burhan’s coalition includes Islamists who became powerful and wealthy during former President Omar al-Bashir’s 30-year rule from 1989 to 2019, the UAE sided against them.

Trump will also need to persuade Saudi Arabia and the UAE to move Sudan higher on their list of priorities.

For both countries, it falls under issues such as Sudan, Gaza and Syria, as well as finance and trade.

Despite his personal appeal to the US president, it is unclear whether Bin Salman has offered to put aside his differences with the Emirati leader to achieve peace in Sudan.

And Burhan appears to interpret the prince’s intervention in Washington as overriding rather than supporting the Quad plan because it could mean exclusion of the UAE.

He wants Saudi Arabia to play a bigger role in mediation, and the UAE is sitting out, which is a green light to intensify the war, not end it.

To be truly effective, Trump will need to apply tremendous pressure on the UAE to end its reported support for the RSF.

But when it comes to bigger issues (the UAE is a champion of the Abraham Accords and a major investment partner), the Trump White House is unlikely to take sides against Abu Dhabi over the war in Sudan.

He has not made a single public condemnation of the UAE, and the prospect of action such as economic sanctions used in other conflicts is zero.

For now, the US is relying on quiet diplomacy to persuade the Emirate to use its influence in its Sudanese protectorate. This requires diplomatic mastery.

Sudan’s long-suffering people hope the Trump White House has the skill and patience needed for peace.

Even if the four win the ceasefire, this is only the beginning.

When aid budgets are cut completely, it will be difficult to find the $3bn (£2.3bn) urgently needed for humanitarian aid. Without a greatly increased relief effort, any ceasefire would be fragile.

And this is just the beginning of the long and troubled road to peace in Sudan.

Sudanese are polarized and resentful, and most do not trust any of the generals.

Civilians who took to the streets seven years ago to oust Bashir are still demanding democracy and justice.

And many worry that if Arab countries direct the peace process, Sudan’s goal will be to become dependent on the Arabs.

Alex de Waal is executive director of the World Peace Foundation at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in the US.