Since the outbreak of war in April 2023, the Sudan crisis has witnessed an unprecedented proliferation and overlap of regional and international initiatives aimed at halting the fighting and launching a comprehensive political process. Despite the intensity of these efforts and the diversity of actors involved – from the Jeddah and Manama platforms to the International Quad and the Quintet and the efforts of the French Promediation Organisation – this multiplicity has failed to translate into any meaningful breakthrough in the peace process. On the contrary, it has contributed to increasing the complexity of the landscape by fostering an environment of competition and institutional fragmentation, thereby undermining the prospects for a unified international position.
This reality has given rise to several complicating dynamics, most notably ‘forum shopping’ by the parties to the conflict, the fragmentation among civil and political actors, the dilution of policies and the repetition of rhetoric shaped by a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach – without producing tangible results. In this context, the core problem is no longer the absence of initiatives, but rather the lack of effective coordination among them, as well as the absence of an inclusive framework capable of ensuring complementarity of roles and directing efforts toward clear, shared objectives. Accordingly, there is a pressing need to rethink how this multiplicity is managed, and to transform it from a source of paralysis into a driver of cohesion that can enhance the prospects for a sustainable political settlement.
External mediators have been concentrating on addressing the humanitarian crisis associated with the war, understandably leaving the political resolution of the conflict to the Sudanese. Sustainable peace will require addressing the root causes that are historically rooted and have driven the country into successive wars since independence. These conflicts have resulted in alternating periods of civilian democracy and military dictatorships, undermining democratic governance. The challenge facing the Sudanese, therefore, is to agree on a framework that ensures peace, security and stability, while ensuring inclusivity, equality and dignity for all citizens.
Maximising the impact of international efforts
For external initiatives to achieve meaningful results in Sudan, they must be grounded in a coordinated approach that aligns bilateral, regional, multilateral and international efforts in support of ceasefire negotiations and a comprehensive political process. Initiatives such as the Quad, Quintet, Promediation and other multilateral platforms can operate effectively in parallel – but only if there is a clearly defined and genuine complementarity of roles. A breakthrough will depend on organising these efforts within a shared strategic framework, including a common understanding of whether – and how – to engage the Sudanese parties to the conflict. Effective coordination can also help build trust among mediators, thereby strengthening their credibility with the conflict actors.
First: establishing an effective UN-mandated political mission
In light of the ongoing escalation and the increasing complexity of the crisis, there is an urgent need to establish an effective political mission under a mandate from the United Nations (UN) Security Council. Such a mission would be better positioned to overcome the limitations of fragmented initiatives and provide a unified and effective international framework.
A ceasefire should be treated as the essential entry point to a broader political process that addresses the root causes of the conflict and lays the foundation for a credible transition to durable peace. Accordingly, the mission’s mandate should extend beyond political mediation to include oversight and coordination of the overall humanitarian response, ensuring unimpeded and non-politicised access, as well as strengthening civilian protection.
In addition, the mission could play a central role in harmonising regional and international efforts and reducing duplication by establishing a coordination mechanism that brings together key actors under a shared vision for a comprehensive, just and durable peace. This would help align interventions around agreed priorities and enhance the likelihood of achieving a genuine breakthrough in the peace process.
Second: coordinating efforts and integrating roles
Given the proliferation of initiatives, coordination and role complementarity have become essential conditions for achieving tangible impact. In this regard, the African Union (AU) and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) are well positioned to facilitate an inclusive Sudanese civil dialogue aimed at rebuilding trust among civil and political actors and reducing the fragmentation that has weakened their collective influence. This requires a shift from merely managing divisions to actively building effective coordination platforms that prioritise shared national interests.
At the regional level, the League of Arab States (LAS) has a critical role to play in revitalising diplomatic engagement with regional actors, particularly those directly or indirectly involved in supporting the warring parties. Such engagement could help mitigate negative external interventions and curb the flow of arms. This role should evolve beyond traditional diplomacy toward closer strategic coordination with African and international initiatives, especially in the humanitarian domain, to ensure that aid delivery remains effective and free from politicisation.
At the international level, the European Union, United States and United Kingdom possess significant leverage, particularly through diplomatic engagement within the UN, specifically the Security Council, as well as through logistical, technical and financial support. However, the effectiveness of these efforts depends largely on the extent to which they are aligned within a coherent multilateral framework that minimises duplication and directs resources toward clearly defined priorities, especially those related to civilian protection and the restoration of a civilian-led transition.
Ultimately, the central challenge is no longer the multiplicity of actors, but rather how to transform this multiplicity into a strategic advantage through coordinated action and integrated roles. Moving from competitive initiatives to a unified coordination framework is essential to reducing fragmentation and ‘forum shopping’, and to enhancing the prospects for a sustainable political settlement in Sudan.
As noted earlier, external mediators, both bilateral and multilateral, have rightly focused on the humanitarian aspects of the war and the urgent need for assistance and civilian protection, while assigning the political task of ending the conflict and securing sustainable peace to the Sudanese, albeit with the support of external partners. This requires agreement on a peace framework that is generally acceptable to the Sudanese people. Such a framework must, to a significant extent, prioritise ensuring the unity of the country on the basis of inclusivity, equality and dignity for all without discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, culture or gender. It should also be recalled that the secession of South Sudan resulted from the failure of the national leadership to create the conditions for consensual unity within a normative framework of full equality of citizenship.
While multiple mediators can contribute constructively, there is a need for a principal mediator or a more limited team of mediators to drive the process with the tools and resources needed for persuasive incentives.
Conclusion
The Sudanese experience clearly demonstrates that the proliferation of initiatives, in the absence of effective coordination, does not necessarily accelerate conflict resolution; rather, it can produce the opposite effect by deepening divisions, thereby prolonging the war. The central challenge is no longer the creation of additional platforms or conferences, but the restructuring of existing efforts within a unified coordination framework that curbs competition and fosters genuine complementarity.
The Sudanese experience clearly demonstrates that the proliferation of initiatives, in the absence of effective coordination, does not necessarily accelerate conflict resolution; rather, it can produce the opposite effect by deepening divisions, thereby prolonging the war.
Tweet
Achieving a meaningful breakthrough in the peace process requires a shift from the logic of parallel and competing initiatives to one of coordinated collective action, where the roles of regional and international actors are aligned and mutually reinforcing, and where political and humanitarian tracks are integrated within a coherent strategic vision. Strengthening effective international mechanisms – particularly an expanded political mission mandated by the UN Security Council – could provide a critical anchor for reordering this fragmented landscape.
Ultimately, the prospects for peace in Sudan will depend not on the number of actors involved, but on their ability to operate within a shared framework that transcends narrow interests and places the priorities of the Sudanese at the centre of all efforts. This will require strategic collaboration between the Sudanese and external actors, as well as the alignment of humanitarian action with efforts to mediate a sustainable and inclusive peace that promotes security and stability.
Ultimately, the prospects for peace in Sudan will depend not on the number of actors involved, but on their ability to operate within a shared framework that transcends narrow interests and places the priorities of the Sudanese at the centre of all efforts.
Tweet
Dr. Francis Deng is Sudan’s former Ambassador to the Scandinavian countries, Canada, and the United States, and State Minister for Foreign Affairs, and South Sudan’s first Permanent Representative to the UN.
Dr. Issameldin Abbas is a retired Major General and former police service leader, with over 30 years of experience in Sudan’s security sector, humanitarian action, and development.
