Why Sudan's Truces Keep Crumbling—And What It Means for Peace

Why Truces Keep Failing in Sudan

As I've followed the conflict in Sudan for over a year now, one thing has become painfully clear: the humanitarian truces being negotiated are not just failing—they're systematically undermined by the very leaders who should be driving peace. In a country where more than 14 million people have been displaced and countless civilians are suffering from starvation and violence, the repeated collapse of ceasefires reveals a deeper problem—political ambition trumping human survival.

"The war in Sudan is not just about territory or power; it's about who controls the narrative of the future," said Cameron Hudson, former adviser to the US envoy to Sudan. "And right now, neither side is willing to negotiate from a place of weakness."

Efforts to broker a 90-day humanitarian truce—backed by the United States and a coalition of regional and global actors—have repeatedly crumbled within hours or days of being announced. The latest attempt, spearheaded by the Aligned for Advancing Lifesaving and Peace in Sudan (ALPS) initiative in Geneva, shows little promise of success. And it's not hard to see why.

The Human Cost of Military Priorities

Since the conflict erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the country has witnessed one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent memory. The UN has repeatedly warned that the aid system is on the brink of collapse. With entire neighborhoods destroyed, basic supplies scarce, and medical facilities overwhelmed, the international community has tried everything short of military intervention to break the deadlock.

But what we're seeing now isn't just a failure of diplomacy—it's a failure of leadership. The SAF and RSF have demonstrated that they prioritize maintaining or expanding their battlefield control over any meaningful dialogue. In South Kordofan, for instance, both sides claim victories, while in other regions, the fighting has only intensified.

What's particularly disturbing is how this conflict reflects broader patterns seen in other post-colonial states where military elites have used war as a means of consolidating power—sometimes for decades. The current leaders, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti), appear to be using the war as both a tool of political control and an excuse to delay meaningful negotiations.

Political Survival Trumps Peace

I've spoken with several analysts, including Fathi Abu Ammar, editor-in-chief of Al-Wasat newspaper, who argues that these military leaders are stalling peace talks not out of disagreement, but because they see a window to secure long-term control. "All these efforts that serve the interest of the Sudanese people primarily were rejected by the army," he told Al Jazeera.

Abu Ammar suggests that al-Burhan is preparing for a formalized rule—perhaps even a prolonged military government. If that's true, it means that any peace deal would be short-lived, as leaders in power are more focused on their own longevity than the well-being of the people they govern.

On the other side, Mohammed Ibrahim al-Rashid from the Center for International Political Relations Studies believes the RSF is facing a diplomatic defeat. But rather than retreat or negotiate, he says, the RSF's leadership is doubling down on its military posture. "The defeat now is not military; it's diplomatic," he told Al Jazeera.

Why Mediation Efforts Fall Short

The international community has thrown everything at this crisis—diplomatic pressure, economic incentives, humanitarian aid, and even high-level negotiations. But in many ways, the approaches have been flawed. As Cameron Hudson noted, the United States has largely relied on punitive measures and sanctions to force change, but these tactics often backfire.

"The issue of accumulating pressures one after another has not succeeded," Hudson said. "And until their position is revealed with the end of the war, I do not think that either of the fighting parties will proceed to stop the fighting."

The lack of inclusion of key stakeholders in these negotiations—particularly the warring factions themselves—is a fatal flaw. When the international community excludes those at the center of the conflict from the table, it creates a vacuum where only force and fear can fill the space.

What It Means for the Future

What I see in Sudan is not just a war that's hard to end—it's one that seems designed to be endless. The political leadership on both sides appears more interested in cementing their own authority than in delivering relief to a suffering population. As aid convoys struggle to reach civilians, and children continue to starve, the international community must confront a harsh reality: peace isn't just about stopping the bullets—it's about changing the incentives for those who pull the triggers.

Until that changes, we'll keep seeing truces collapse, humanitarian crises deepen, and people like those in Khartoum—where mosques have been damaged by drone strikes and homes destroyed by violence—bear the brunt of a conflict they didn't start. My hope is that leaders will eventually understand that peace isn't negotiable when it comes to saving lives.