Sudan's peace efforts will fail until civilians are finally put at the centre Submitted by Abdelwahab El-Affendi on Fri, 01/09/2026 - 10:18 Ceasefires marked by massacres, blocked aid routes and struck convoys show how agreements built around armed groups leave communities vulnerable to further atrocities Dowa Hamed, a 25-year-old Sudanese mother who was paralysed during childbirth, rests on a cot at the Abu al-Naga displacement camp after fleeing a Rapid Support Forces attack on Heglig in western Sudan, on 30 December 2025 (Abdulrahman Gumaa/AFP) Off Most peace proposals to resolve Sudan 's current destructive war have tended to leave civilians out of the picture. This neglect goes well beyond avoiding references to justice for victims of genocide and rape , in its refusal to prioritise the protection of civilians against atrocities. Nearly all approaches have focused on securing a ceasefire between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), leaving vulnerable civilians at the mercy of armed parties. The latest American initiative is no exception. Yet all major atrocities, from the genocide in el-Geneina waged in April 2023 to the genocide in el-Fasher last October, occurred amid an absence of fighting between the two armed groups; that is, under conditions of a ceasefire. The Geneina genocide occurred before the conflict spread to Darfur, as outgunned SAF units kept to their barracks while RSF forces carried out mass killings. The ongoing sequel in el-Fasher unfolded after SAF and its allied militias withdrew from the city. In both cases, a complete ceasefire was in place when RSF forces committed their gravest crimes . What was needed most then was adequate firepower to protect civilians. Indeed, the experience of the past two years shows how ceasefires without enforceable guarantees to stop violations leave civilians vulnerable to the worst abuses. A 'crime scene' Months before the tragedy in el-Fasher, I remember telling a senior European diplomat, during a discussion of humanitarian needs in Sudan, that the most pressing was strengthening the SAF's capacity to defend threatened urban centres and prevent them from going the way el-Fasher went. International bodies neglect the obvious outcome that 'ceasefires' without guarantees to halt atrocities would amount to complicity in gross abuses against civilians In Khartoum, the brief and incomplete cessation of hostilities in the early weeks of the war caused civilians to protest, since it allowed the RSF more time and resources to target neighbourhoods. However, international bodies insisted on the same demand without thinking or imagination, neglecting the obvious outcome that "ceasefires" without guarantees to halt atrocities would amount to complicity in gross abuses against civilians. An exception may have been the never-implemented May 2023 Jeddah Declaration . Although the provisional agreement was sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the United States, the "humanitarian protocol" on which it was based came from an informal African-led group headed by former South African President Thabo Mbeki. But neither the sponsors, the African Union, nor any other regional or international body pressed for its implementation. The recent peace plan put forward by Sudanese Prime Minister Kamil Idris appeared to be making some progress towards limiting atrocities against civilians. However, the prime minister's plan was rather naive in assuming that the RSF would roll over and die on his say-so. Delivered in a surprise speech to the United Nations Security Council on 23 December 2025, the proposal appeared half-baked, with little internal consultation or with Sudan's regional or international partners. The Sudanese public was not alerted to the initiative until Idris took the podium at the UN. The proposal included a ceasefire, subject to UN and regional monitoring, followed by the militia's withdrawal from the cities it occupied and its disarmament. Added to this were proposals for a civilian dialogue, to be followed by a transitional period and then elections that would return the country to democratic civilian rule. The most crucial phase is a monitored ceasefire that ensures the safety of civilians and guarantees the flow of humanitarian assistance. This requirement faces three obstacles: the deliberate obstruction of aid routes by the RSF, demonstrated most starkly in the brutal siege of el-Fasher for nearly two years; the targeting of aid convoys, facilities and workers, involving looting, shelling, murder and kidnapping; and, most serious, the complicity of international actors, including humanitarian groups, through silence, overlooking violations and failing to send clear messages of condemnation. Instead, the militia continues to be rewarded as it persists in its serial and cumulative atrocities. Meanwhile, major international actors insist on including the RSF in negotiations rather than pressuring it first to halt atrocities as a condition for participation. A case in point was a UN visit late last month to el-Fasher, two months after it was stormed by the RSF, to "assess" its humanitarian needs. The visit came after the city's population of 1.5 million was reduced to a quarter by the long siege and then completely decimated thereafter. The team described the city as a " crime scene ", saying it had been allowed to see only a few civilians who appeared highly distressed and had limited access to food. It had no information on the whereabouts of the rest of the population, although it mentioned that many may be under arrest. Clues can be found in a December report by Yale University's Humanitarian Research Lab, which documented RSF's efforts to eliminate piles of bodies from its horrific massacres over the two months of its control of the defenceless city. The UN humanitarian team did not raise questions - perhaps because it could not. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres once again called for an immediate ceasefire to support humanitarian efforts, while Unicef issued a fundraising appeal. None seemed to notice that ghosts do not eat, much less fight. A more realistic course From this perspective, the Sudanese prime minister's ceasefire plan is unrealistic, as it effectively calls on the militia to surrender while it still retains some degree of power. The militia must be curbed and eventually removed from the scene, but this requires an international presence to prevent the flow of weapons, as well as strong global and regional support for the government to enhance its ability to deter future attacks on cities and to restrain and weaken the militia sufficiently to protect civilians. At the same time, the prime minister calls for UN oversight of the ceasefire while rejecting the presence of UN forces for that purpose. Why Sudan's war risks becoming a permanent political system in 2026 Read More » The initiative also failed to clearly define the centrality of the goal of protecting civilians and stopping violations, even though this is the true objective behind the demand to restrain and weaken the militia. Accordingly, the realistic short-term solution is the formation of a strong international and regional coalition to confront the militia and force it to withdraw from all of North Darfur, as well as from key cities in South Darfur and any other areas it occupies in the country. This would need to be accompanied by intensive UN monitoring in areas of RSF presence to protect civilians and secure the release of those held captive by the militia. The measures must be supported by adequate deterrent capabilities at the government's disposal and by strong international backing. As for subsequent phases, such as the civilian dialogue, these should run in parallel but must proceed from shared premises. Chief among them are the condemnation of past and ongoing atrocities, a shared commitment to protecting civilians and effective accountability for perpetrators. There can be no advance without passing through this stage and removing the major perpetrators. Likewise, negotiations cannot include actors refusing to unequivocally condemn the militia's crimes or commit to the priority of civilian protection. Thus, the focus of any initiative must be the protection of civilians, cities and civilian life; enabling the return of displaced persons to their homes; reopening schools, hospitals and markets; and securing them against new threats. Only then can civilian life return to normal, and a civilian bloc capable of dialogue be formed. With nearly half of Sudan's population displaced , the imperative of achieving peace and deterring further aggression against civilians should be the top priority. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. Sudan war Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0