Sudan’s war reaches a perilous turning point
By Tajul Islam
The war in Sudan has entered one of its most dangerous and decisive phases. Despite the circulation of a new ceasefire proposal, the guns have not fallen silent. Instead, violence continues to tear through cities, towns, and fragile rural communities. For many observers, the failure of the latest truce may appear to confirm the bleak outlook for peace. Yet, rather than prompt disengagement, this moment demands renewed international involvement. The scale of the crisis – and the stakes for Sudan, Africa, and the wider world – are too high to justify retreat.
More than two years after the conflict erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the country remains trapped in an unrelenting cycle of violence. Both sides have repeatedly rejected or violated ceasefire agreements, choosing instead to pursue military gains that have only deepened the suffering of the civilian population. Still, the international community cannot abandon the pursuit of diplomacy simply because previous efforts have faltered. The alternative – a complete collapse of Sudan’s political, humanitarian, and economic systems – would be disastrous for millions.
Sudan’s trajectory is not confined to its geographic borders. The country occupies a strategic location at the crossroads of the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea, the Sahel, and North Africa. The ripple effects of its instability are already being felt. An unchecked collapse threatens to exacerbate extremism, fuel the proliferation of armed groups, destabilize trade routes, and trigger massive refugee movements into Egypt, Chad, South Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and beyond.
The conflict’s internal damage is staggering. Entire cities have been devastated or depopulated. Urban neighborhoods once bustling with life now lie abandoned under the weight of shelling, street battles, and scorched-earth tactics. Government institutions – hospitals, courts, water treatment facilities, schools – have been dismantled or destroyed, leaving millions without access to essential services. For many Sudanese, the collapse is not theoretical; it is a daily lived reality.
The humanitarian situation is equally catastrophic. More than 10 million people have been displaced, either internally or across borders, making Sudan one of the world’s largest displacement crises. Families have fled repeatedly as the front lines shift unpredictably, often with little more than what they can carry. Others remain trapped in besieged areas where food, medicine, electricity, and clean water have become scarce or entirely inaccessible.
The health infrastructure has nearly collapsed, amplifying the spread of disease and leaving wounded civilians without lifesaving care. In camps for displaced people, cholera, malaria, and malnutrition are rampant. Schools have been closed or destroyed, denying an entire generation of children access to education. Every week that the conflict continues, the long-term damage deepens.
Despite the daunting challenges, disengagement is not an option. If the international community were to step back now, Sudan would slide further into fragmentation and irreversible state failure. Such a collapse would not only magnify the humanitarian disaster but also create fertile ground for criminal syndicates, cross-border militias, arms trafficking networks, and extremist groups. Sudan’s disintegration would become a regional crisis with global consequences.
Strategically, maintaining international engagement is essential. Diplomacy, humanitarian access, and pressure on the warring factions are the only available mechanisms capable of slowing the country’s descent. While a comprehensive peace deal remains distant, meaningful steps – even small ones – can help create conditions for future negotiations.
The current ceasefire framework advanced in September by the Quad – the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE – remains one of the most significant diplomatic initiatives on the table. The plan’s phased approach, beginning with a humanitarian truce and progressing toward political dialogue, offers a realistic structure for renewed negotiation. Although the RSF announced a unilateral three-month humanitarian ceasefire earlier this week, reports indicated that fighting resumed within hours, underscoring the urgent need for verifiable and jointly monitored commitments.
The Quad initiative is important not only because of its content but also because it represents coordinated regional and international engagement rather than fragmented external interventions. If systematically reinforced and adapted to the rapidly changing realities on the ground, it could serve as a genuine platform for diplomatic momentum.
But diplomatic pressure must extend beyond the Quad. The broader international community – including the UN Security Council, the European Union, and influential regional actors – must present a unified position: that continued obstruction of aid and rejection of negotiations is unacceptable. Isolation, sanctions, accountability measures, and coordinated political pressure remain critical tools.
Sudan’s war has grown beyond a purely internal conflict, increasingly affecting the wider African continent. For this reason, the African Union (AU) must take a more central role in shaping the diplomatic process. The AU possesses both the moral legitimacy and the institutional mandate to intervene in continental crises. Its engagement is essential not only for ceasefire negotiations but also for charting a long-term political settlement.
The AU’s coordination with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), East African states, and pan-African institutions could generate a unified regional framework – one rooted in African ownership rather than external interests. This approach would not only strengthen mediation efforts but also increase the likelihood of compliance by both SAF and RSF leaders.
While political negotiations remain stalled, the humanitarian emergency cannot be ignored. Immediate creation of secure humanitarian corridors is critical. Aid agencies report being blocked by both sides, and civilians trapped in Darfur, Omdurman, Khartoum, and Kordofan face starvation, untreated injuries, and disease without access to assistance.
International actors must insist that humanitarian access be treated as non-negotiable. Pressure, incentives, and monitoring mechanisms must be intensified to ensure that aid reaches the populations most in need.
If Sudan continues on its current trajectory, the consequences will be felt for decades. Neighboring countries will face overwhelming refugee flows, economic strain, and increased exposure to conflict spillover. Human trafficking, arms smuggling, and illicit networks will thrive across porous borders. Instability in Sudan could threaten Red Sea shipping routes and undermine broader African security.
Preventing this outcome requires a comprehensive international approach – combining sustained diplomatic engagement, robust humanitarian support, and coordinated mediation efforts.
The world must not give up on Sudan. The crisis demands a renewed, strategic, and coordinated international response. The longer the war continues without meaningful intervention, the more catastrophic the consequences will be – for Sudanese civilians, for Africa, and for global security.
Sudan is standing on the edge of fragmentation. Pulling it back requires persistence, focus, and moral clarity. The window to act is narrowing, but it has not yet closed.
