Donald Trump pledges to tackle Sudan atrocities

Sudan, which has been struggling with war for two and a half years, is in ruins. Half a dozen peace initiatives have failed, none of them able to pressure or persuade regional power brokers to reach an agreement.

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

Can direct intervention from the Oval Office change this?

According to US President Donald Trump’s own admission, the conflict was not to be on his “charts. I thought it was just something that was crazy and out of control.”

But that was before the White House meeting with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman 10 days ago. He informed the President of what was happening and asked him to intervene.

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

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

In fact, the US was already involved in the negotiations, but perhaps Trump’s personal influence with the leaders of those allies – who are accused of supporting one side or the other in Sudan – could make a difference.

With nearly 12 million people driven from their homes and famine looming in parts of the country, Sudanese are desperate for something – anything – to break the impasse.

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

After a 500-day siege, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured the town of al-Fashar, the army’s last stronghold in the western region of Darfur.

RSF fighters went on a rampage throughout the city, killing, raping and looting. The number of people killed in this ethnically targeted massacre is estimated at more than 5,000.

Self-filmed mobile phone footage by the killers of decapitating, torturing and killing victims – known as “trophy videos” – circulated on social media.

In the wake of the assassination, the posture of war leaders follows a long-standing pattern.

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

But the Sudanese generals, hurt by their humiliation on the battlefield, were unwilling to compromise.

The leader of the UN-recognized government, armed forces chief of staff General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, rejected the ceasefire, and promised to fight on.

Burhan – and especially the Islamists in his camp – are now in fighting mood, describing the RSF as a terrorist gang that must be completely defeated.

Hemedti publicly offers a compromise. But the atrocities of his soldiers tell a different story and few people in the cities they have ravaged would think of living under his rule.

When they face defeat, the army commanders constantly swear to avenge their defeat and regain their glory. And when they’re winning, they insist they can get the job done.

During 40 years of wars in South Sudan, Darfur and elsewhere, this mentality has meant that Sudan’s leaders rejected peace formulas proposed by mediators.

As the country now faces real division, this is the pattern Trump needs to break.

Regional states support different sides in the war.

Egypt and Turkey have increased arms supplies to the Sudanese army. Saudi Arabia is also inclined towards the army.

Multiple reports from investigative journalists and intelligence agencies suggest that the UAE is arming the RSF, and supplies are reportedly increasing. UAE has always denied this.

The first step towards peace is for major regional states to stop fanning the flames and instead use their influence for peace.

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

He established the “Quad” – the US along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – and drafted a plan with three key elements:

• an armistice
• access to humanitarian aid
• Negotiations to establish a civilian-led government.

The Quad confirmed its plan in September and met again with Washington last month. But this could not bridge the gap between the Sudanese warring parties and the RSF then attacked al-Fashar.

At face value, Bin Salman’s appeal to Trump gives more weight to the Quad plan.

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

The problem is that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are engaged in a fierce rivalry for influence across the Arab world, including countries like Yemen and Syria, as well as Sudan.

It is a competition to see who will be the leading power in the Arabian Peninsula.

There are also policy differences between the two, particularly over how to handle the Muslim Brotherhood – Saudi Arabia can tolerate Islamists provided they do not have a leading role, while the UAE considers it a terrorist organization.

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

Trump will also need to engage Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to move Sudan up his list of priorities.

For both countries, Sudan comes down to issues like Gaza and Syria as well as finance and commerce.

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

And Burhan appears to be interpreting the prince’s intervention in Washington as overriding the Quad plan, not as promoting it, as it could mean ousting the UAE.

He wants to see Saudi Arabia play a bigger role in the mediation, and the UAE out of it – which would be a green signal to escalate the war, not end it.

To be truly effective, Trump would need to put heavy pressure on the UAE to end its alleged support of the RSF.

But with bigger issues at stake – 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 on the war in Sudan.

It has not drawn a single public rebuke of the UAE and the likelihood of action – used in other conflicts – such as economic sanctions is nil.

For now, the US is relying on quiet diplomacy to persuade the Emiratis to exert their influence over their Sudanese wards. It demands diplomatic skills.

Sudan’s long-suffering people are hoping the Trump White House has the skills and patience to pursue peace.

Even if the Quad wins the ceasefire, it is only the beginning.

With deep cuts to the aid budget, it will be difficult to obtain the urgently needed $3 billion (£2.3 billion) for humanitarian aid. Without a massively increased aid effort, any ceasefire will be fragile.

And this is the beginning of a long and difficult road to peace in Sudan.

Sudanese are polarized and bitter, and most of them do not trust any general.

The citizens who took to the streets seven years ago to topple Bashir are still demanding democracy and justice.

And many worry that if Arab countries lead the peace process, Sudan will end up becoming Arab dependent.

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