Following the close of the UN-hosted indirect talks between the warring Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the US is hoping to carry the momentum of the talks forward and hold another round..Mixed Success.The UN-hosted talks were held in Geneva, Switzerland, and ran from July 11th to the 19th. The talks were a mixed success. Although no peace deals or ceasefires were agreed upon from the talks, they were the first publicly known talks since November, when previous negotiations in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, broke down with no resolution. Additionally, the RSF iterated a commitment to expanding humanitarian aid access and cooperating with an RSF-aligned humanitarian organization. However, only time will tell if they truly hold to this commitment..The talks, notedly, were indirect. Both sides of the conflict sent delegations to Switzerland, and neither side actually met with the other, only meeting with the UN, which acted as a mediator and relayed necessary information..It is unclear if the US, who seeks to mediate talks also hosted in Switzerland, intends to hold the talks in the same manner, or will attempt to have both sides meet face to face..The date for the US-mediated talks is August 14th. Notably, the US State Department has said that Saudi Arabia is set to "co-host" the talks. Further, the African Union, Egypt, the UN, and the United Arab Emirates are to attend as observers..The US and Saudi Arabia, acting as co-hosts for the talks, make them strikingly similar to the talks in Jeddah last year. The State Department described the planned talks as "ceasefire talks," and so they are likely to have the same goal of ending the war or, at the very least, creating a temporary ceasefire to allow for the greater delivery of humanitarian aid..The US has called upon both the RSF and the SAF to attend the talks. While the RSF has confirmed their attendance, and welcomed the initiative by the US, it is unclear if the SAF has confirmed their attendance or not.."The scale of death, suffering, and destruction in Sudan is devastating. This senseless conflict must end. The United States calls upon the SAF and the RSF to attend the talks and approach them constructively, with the imperative to save lives, stop the fighting, and create a path to a negotiated political solution to the conflict. We join the Sudanese people's calls for peace and a democratic transition, and we urge the parties to stop the fighting for the sake of a brighter future for Sudan." -An excerpt from the statement from the US State Department.In addition to ceasefire talks, the State Department said that the talks hope to enable "humanitarian access to all those in need and develop a robust monitoring and verification mechanism to ensure implementation of any agreement." The finer details of what this verification mechanism would look like are unknown but it is assuredly needed as both sides have routinely made efforts to halt, delay, and divert humanitarian aid throughout the course of the war..It is also worth noting that the US statement specifically notes that the talks "do not aim to address broader political issues." This means that the pressing political issues that prompted the war in the first place, most prominently if and how the RSF should integrate into the military and power-sharing agreements, will remain if a ceasefire is actually reached..This, of course, will create a significant amount of tension in a post-war setting if a ceasefire is reached at these talks..Further, this shows that the US has not hitched the talks, or a ceasefire, upon a guarantee that Sudan will resume its democratic transition, a process that was interrupted by the coup headed by SAF leader General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in 2021, though the US has espoused support for returning to this transition..In the Shadow of Jeddah.For the past several months, several different entities, primarily the US, have made efforts to revive talks in Jeddah. The talks, which were held on several occasions in 2023, collapsed in November after it became clear that neither side was holding to the terms and commitments established in Jeddah..The talks successfully brokered a number of ceasefires and humanitarian pauses; however, all of them failed, sometimes before they were even implemented, as fighting continued past the starting date..The US had hoped to resume the Jeddah talks in April, after the Islamic holy month of Ramadan ended. This effort was unsuccessful, however, as the SAF established a series of preconditions to attending any talks, saying they would not do so unless the RSF withdrew from urban areas. The RSF expressed no interest in joining these talks either, despite their previous statements saying they were willing to sign a ceasefire deal or attend talks..What was illuminated in Jeddah was a series of commitments from both sides, primarily centered around providing humanitarian aid for Sudan's beleaguered population, of which 25 million, half of Sudan's population, are facing food insecurity..It is unclear what has changed now that both sides have agreed to hold talks, particularly ones aimed at a ceasefire, despite their apprehension before. This apprehension was perfectly highlighted in March and April when the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding a ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, which went ignored by both the RSF and the SAF..It is further unclear why the US has opted to hold the talks in Switzerland rather than Jeddah. It is possible that this decision was reached due to talks in Jeddah being a continuation, and thus both sides would have to revisit their prior commitments. In Switzerland, however, talks can be approached in a fresher manner..Given the humanitarian commitments reached in Jeddah, it is likely that, unless the new talks in Switzerland produce a permanent ceasefire—which is unlikely—efforts will again be made to revive the talks in Jeddah and, with them, a renewing of humanitarian commitments.
Following the close of the UN-hosted indirect talks between the warring Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the US is hoping to carry the momentum of the talks forward and hold another round..Mixed Success.The UN-hosted talks were held in Geneva, Switzerland, and ran from July 11th to the 19th. The talks were a mixed success. Although no peace deals or ceasefires were agreed upon from the talks, they were the first publicly known talks since November, when previous negotiations in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, broke down with no resolution. Additionally, the RSF iterated a commitment to expanding humanitarian aid access and cooperating with an RSF-aligned humanitarian organization. However, only time will tell if they truly hold to this commitment..The talks, notedly, were indirect. Both sides of the conflict sent delegations to Switzerland, and neither side actually met with the other, only meeting with the UN, which acted as a mediator and relayed necessary information..It is unclear if the US, who seeks to mediate talks also hosted in Switzerland, intends to hold the talks in the same manner, or will attempt to have both sides meet face to face..The date for the US-mediated talks is August 14th. Notably, the US State Department has said that Saudi Arabia is set to "co-host" the talks. Further, the African Union, Egypt, the UN, and the United Arab Emirates are to attend as observers..The US and Saudi Arabia, acting as co-hosts for the talks, make them strikingly similar to the talks in Jeddah last year. The State Department described the planned talks as "ceasefire talks," and so they are likely to have the same goal of ending the war or, at the very least, creating a temporary ceasefire to allow for the greater delivery of humanitarian aid..The US has called upon both the RSF and the SAF to attend the talks. While the RSF has confirmed their attendance, and welcomed the initiative by the US, it is unclear if the SAF has confirmed their attendance or not.."The scale of death, suffering, and destruction in Sudan is devastating. This senseless conflict must end. The United States calls upon the SAF and the RSF to attend the talks and approach them constructively, with the imperative to save lives, stop the fighting, and create a path to a negotiated political solution to the conflict. We join the Sudanese people's calls for peace and a democratic transition, and we urge the parties to stop the fighting for the sake of a brighter future for Sudan." -An excerpt from the statement from the US State Department.In addition to ceasefire talks, the State Department said that the talks hope to enable "humanitarian access to all those in need and develop a robust monitoring and verification mechanism to ensure implementation of any agreement." The finer details of what this verification mechanism would look like are unknown but it is assuredly needed as both sides have routinely made efforts to halt, delay, and divert humanitarian aid throughout the course of the war..It is also worth noting that the US statement specifically notes that the talks "do not aim to address broader political issues." This means that the pressing political issues that prompted the war in the first place, most prominently if and how the RSF should integrate into the military and power-sharing agreements, will remain if a ceasefire is actually reached..This, of course, will create a significant amount of tension in a post-war setting if a ceasefire is reached at these talks..Further, this shows that the US has not hitched the talks, or a ceasefire, upon a guarantee that Sudan will resume its democratic transition, a process that was interrupted by the coup headed by SAF leader General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in 2021, though the US has espoused support for returning to this transition..In the Shadow of Jeddah.For the past several months, several different entities, primarily the US, have made efforts to revive talks in Jeddah. The talks, which were held on several occasions in 2023, collapsed in November after it became clear that neither side was holding to the terms and commitments established in Jeddah..The talks successfully brokered a number of ceasefires and humanitarian pauses; however, all of them failed, sometimes before they were even implemented, as fighting continued past the starting date..The US had hoped to resume the Jeddah talks in April, after the Islamic holy month of Ramadan ended. This effort was unsuccessful, however, as the SAF established a series of preconditions to attending any talks, saying they would not do so unless the RSF withdrew from urban areas. The RSF expressed no interest in joining these talks either, despite their previous statements saying they were willing to sign a ceasefire deal or attend talks..What was illuminated in Jeddah was a series of commitments from both sides, primarily centered around providing humanitarian aid for Sudan's beleaguered population, of which 25 million, half of Sudan's population, are facing food insecurity..It is unclear what has changed now that both sides have agreed to hold talks, particularly ones aimed at a ceasefire, despite their apprehension before. This apprehension was perfectly highlighted in March and April when the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding a ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, which went ignored by both the RSF and the SAF..It is further unclear why the US has opted to hold the talks in Switzerland rather than Jeddah. It is possible that this decision was reached due to talks in Jeddah being a continuation, and thus both sides would have to revisit their prior commitments. In Switzerland, however, talks can be approached in a fresher manner..Given the humanitarian commitments reached in Jeddah, it is likely that, unless the new talks in Switzerland produce a permanent ceasefire—which is unlikely—efforts will again be made to revive the talks in Jeddah and, with them, a renewing of humanitarian commitments.
