Donald Trump promises to address atrocities in Sudan

After two and a half years of war, Sudan is in ruins. Six peace initiatives have failed, with none able to pressure regional power brokers or persuade them to push for compromise.

Many Sudanese are asking whether the world cares whether they live or die.

Would direct intervention from the Oval Office change that?

US President Donald Trump himself admitted that the conflict was not part of his “plan. I think it’s just something crazy and out of control.”

But that was before the White House met with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ten days ago. He briefed the president on what had happened and asked him to intervene.

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

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

Indeed, the United States is already involved in the negotiations, but perhaps Trump’s personal influence over the leaders of these allies – all of whom have been accused of supporting one side or another of Sudan – could have an impact.

With nearly 12 million people forced to flee their homes and famine persisting in parts of the country, Sudanese are desperate for something – anything – to break the deadlock.

The civil war reached a new and terrifying nadir in late October, just days before Trump commented on the situation.

After a 500-day siege of starvation, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured the city of El Fasher, the army’s last stronghold in Darfur’s far west.

Doctors Without Borders fighters rampaged through the city, killing, raping and looting. The number of people killed in this genocide is estimated to be over 5,000.

Cell phone videos of the killers torturing, tormenting and killing their victims – known as “trophy videos” – circulated on social media.

In the aftermath of the killings, the posture of war leaders followed a long-standing pattern.

After taking El Fasher, MSF leader General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (nicknamed “Hemedti”) announced that he was ready for a ceasefire. He wanted to salvage a reputation tarnished by mass killings.

But the Sudanese generals, stung by the humiliation on the battlefield, were not prepared to compromise.

The leader of the UN-recognized government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, has rejected a ceasefire and pledged to continue fighting.

Burhan – and especially the Islamists in his camp – are now in a fighting mood, describing SSF as a terrorist rabble that must be defeated once and for all.

Hemedi publicly proposed a compromise. But the brutality of his troops told a different story, and few in the cities they sacked would consider living under their rule.

When they first suffered defeat, military commanders always vowed to seek revenge and regain their dignity. When they win, they insist they can get the job done.

During the 40-year war in southern Sudan, Darfur and elsewhere, this mentality meant that Sudanese leaders refused to accept the peace proposals proposed by mediators.

With the country now facing de facto division, this is the pattern Trump needs to break.

Regional countries support different sides in the war.

Egypt and Türkiye have stepped up arms supplies to the Sudanese army. Saudi Arabia also leans toward the military.

Multiple reports from investigative journalists and intelligence agencies indicate that the UAE has been providing weapons to Forces Without Borders and is reportedly increasing its supplies. The UAE has always denied this.

The first step toward peace is for the region’s major countries to stop adding fuel to the fire and instead use their influence to promote peace.

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

They established the “Quad” – the United States plus Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – and drafted a plan with three key elements:

• ceasefire
• Get humanitarian aid
• Negotiate a civilian-led government.

The Quad confirmed its plans in September and met with Washington again last month. But it was unable to fully close the gap between Sudan’s warring parties, and MSF subsequently attacked El Fasher.

Ostensibly, bin Salman’s appeal to Trump lends weight to the Quad plan.

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

The problem is that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are fiercely competing for influence in the Arab world, including countries such as Yemen, Syria and Sudan.

This is a battle to see who will become the dominant power in the Arabian Peninsula.

The two countries also have policy differences, particularly over how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood – Saudi Arabia tolerates the Islamists as long as they do not play a leading role, while the UAE considers it a terrorist organization.

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

Trump also needs to get Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to make Sudan a priority.

For both countries, Sudan’s problems rank behind Gaza and Syria, as well as problems such as finance and commerce.

Despite his personal appeal to the US president, it is unclear whether bin Salman is willing to put aside his differences with the UAE leader to achieve peace in Sudan.

Burhan appeared to interpret the prince’s intervention in Washington as overriding the Quad plan rather than supporting it, which could mean excluding the UAE.

He wants to see Saudi Arabia play a greater role in mediation, with the UAE excluded – a green light to intensify the war rather than end it.

To make a real difference, Trump needs to put intense pressure on the UAE to end its support for Reporters Without Borders.

But facing larger issues – the UAE is a defender of the Abraham Accords and a major investment partner – the Trump White House is unlikely to side with Abu Dhabi on the war in Sudan.

It has not issued a single public condemnation of the UAE and has zero chance of taking action, such as economic sanctions, in other conflicts.

For now, the United States is relying on quiet diplomacy to persuade the UAE to use its influence against Sudan’s protégés. This requires diplomatic skills.

The long-suffering people of Sudan hope that the Trump administration will have the ability and patience to achieve peace.

Even if the Quartet wins a ceasefire, this is only the beginning.

With aid budgets slashed, the $3bn (£2.3bn) urgently needed for humanitarian aid will be hard to find. Without a massive step-up in aid efforts, any truce will be fragile.

And this is just the beginning of Sudan’s long and challenging road to peace.

Sudanese people are polarized and hateful, and most of them distrust any of their generals.

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

Many fear that if Arab states dominate the peace process, Sudan’s ultimate goal will be to become an Arab client state.

Alex de Waal is executive director of the World Peace Foundation at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, USA