Since the outbreak of conflict on April 15, 2023, Sudan has been mired in a severe war between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Each side is bolstered by a complex network of domestic and international allies, complicating the path to peace.
The stakes are high, and the ideological divides—both within Sudan and globally—further entrench the conflict. The RSF’s repeated calls for dialogue contrast sharply with the SAF’s insistence on preconditions, which has repeatedly stalled progress. This stalemate raises a pressing question: can peace be achieved if one side remains unwilling to negotiate without setting unattainable terms?
The RSF, supported by various regional and global actors, has consistently demonstrated a willingness to engage in negotiations. In contrast, the SAF remains rigid in its stance, impeding potential progress.
International players, including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have vested interests in the outcome, yet the RSF remains steadfast in its commitment to achieving peace for the Sudanese people.
The civilian mediation group Taqaddum has also acknowledged the RSF’s openness to dialogue as a crucial step toward ending the conflict. Previous mediation attempts, such as the Saudi-US process in May 2023, were hampered by the SAF’s inflexibility. Despite this, the RSF’s battlefield successes highlight its strength and legitimacy, underscoring its importance in any meaningful peace process.
The RSF envisions a Sudan free from the corrupt influence of the National Congress Party (NCP) and extremist Islamists who have long plagued the country. The RSF’s refusal to integrate into the SAF—dominated by these elements—is not merely a military stance but a declaration of its intent to reform Sudan’s political landscape.
While the SAF clings to outdated power structures, viewing the RSF as subordinate, the RSF has emerged as a formidable force with a new vision for the nation. Unlike the SAF, which is prone to fracture rather than share power, the RSF is dedicated to ensuring that the NCP and extremists no longer shape Sudan’s future.
Although Taqaddum is often seen as impartial, its alignment with the RSF reflects the latter’s significant role in shaping Sudan’s future. Controlling nearly half of Sudan’s territory, the RSF must be a central player in any peace process. Their leadership, combined with Taqaddum’s civilian influence, offers a viable path forward—one that excludes the NCP and extremists who have driven the country to the brink.
The SAF’s reluctance to engage in good faith negotiations has allowed the RSF to emerge as a beacon of hope for those seeking a peaceful resolution. Despite numerous missed opportunities for dialogue, including the January IGAD summit and the Geneva discussions in August, the RSF remains committed to a peaceful resolution.
For a lasting peace in Sudan, all parties must set aside their differences and negotiate with those they may find objectionable. Despite facing vilification, the RSF has proven itself a crucial and reliable participant in any peace process. As the international community looks to Sudan, it must acknowledge the RSF’s pivotal role and support its efforts toward a lasting resolution.