Washington’s diplomacy in Sudan has backfired

What the report says

Al Jazeera opinion writer Cameron Hudson argues that Washington’s Sudan policy has failed to produce a ceasefire and may have worsened the diplomatic impasse. The article says the United States has spent much of this year increasing pressure on Sudan’s armed forces, including sanctions, support for a countrywide arms embargo effort at the UN, and a move to condition General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s UN General Assembly attendance on signing a ceasefire proposal.

The piece says these steps were taken as fighting continued between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, with Washington aiming to freeze the conflict and secure humanitarian access. It contends that the US has focused too heavily on pressuring the army while treating the RSF as the more cooperative side, even though neither faction has shown readiness to accept terms they believe would strengthen the other. In the author’s view, the result has been a stalled peace process and a greater risk of entrenching a de facto partition of the country.

Hudson also says Washington’s approach has left it increasingly isolated from other Western, Arab and African actors who are seeking a broader peace process, not just a quick ceasefire. The article points to reported disappointment from several governments and says Saudi Arabia has signaled it may reassess its role in the US-led Quad on Sudan. More broadly, it argues that diplomacy based mainly on pressure and exclusion has not moved the parties toward settlement.

The analysis matters because Sudan’s war has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises and regional instability, and outside powers continue to shape the path toward or away from negotiations.