The United States has stirred the stagnant waters of Sudan’s war by announcing plans to expand an arms embargo imposed on Darfur for more than two decades to cover the entire country.
The move appears aimed at shifting from limited sanctions to a direct attempt to reduce the warring parties’ ability to keep fighting and force them to reconsider the cost of seeking a military victory compared with returning to negotiations. It is a risky step, but one that also signals Washington’s determination to make a breakthrough in a war described as one of the world’s largest and most severe humanitarian crises.
Massad Boulos, senior advisor to the US president for Arab and African affairs, told the UN Security Council days ago that the US proposal would cover drones, related technologies and components, while strengthening the work of the sanctions panel of experts tasked with monitoring violations.
The current Darfur arms embargo expires Sept. 12, making the coming weeks a test of Washington’s ability to build consensus in the Security Council. Russia has voiced clear reservations, saying it would not accept measures affecting the Sudanese army’s capabilities, while China has taken a cautious position on expanding sanctions, leaving adoption of the proposal in its current form uncertain.
Washington views the proposed embargo as a pressure tool rather than merely a punitive measure. According to The Associated Press, the US administration believes restricting the flow of weapons to the belligerents could push them back to the negotiating table. UN political affairs chief Rosemary DiCarlo has meanwhile warned against the parties’ continued reliance on a military solution and the steady influx of sophisticated weapons.
Sudan’s Sovereignty Council chairman and army chief Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, however, has played down the possible impact of sanctions, saying they would neither affect Sudan nor weaken the armed forces’ resolve. He insisted the army would continue fighting until it retakes all areas controlled by the Rapid Support Forces.
The contrast shows the political struggle surrounding the US proposal. Washington wants to convince both sides that the flow of weapons cannot remain open-ended, while Sudan’s military leadership continues to speak in terms of retaking territory by force. The RSF is likewise reinforcing its positions and relying on supply networks, weapons and drones.
The US premise is that the ability to rearm prolongs the war: As long as each side believes it can replace its losses and obtain more drones, ammunition, fuel and financing, its incentive to compromise remains limited. If supplies become more difficult and costly, military calculations could gradually shift toward a settlement.
Drone use has expanded significantly in recent months, with attacks extending beyond front lines to cities, markets, electricity and water facilities and health infrastructure. Rosemary DiCarlo, the UN's under secretary-general for political and peacebuilding affairs, said sophisticated weapons, including drones, have become a major factor in increasing the war’s toll on civilians.
Restricting drones and their components, ammunition and heavy weapons could therefore yield an immediate humanitarian benefit by reducing long-range attacks, civilian casualties, displacement and disruption to hospitals and electricity and water networks, while improving humanitarian access.
But the plan’s success will depend on enforcement. The Darfur embargo, in place since 2005, failed to stop weapons from entering the region, exposing the limits of UN resolutions without effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
Opposition Welcomes Proposal
Sudanese civilian opposition forces welcomed the US proposal while stressing that it should be linked to a comprehensive political process.
Khalid Omer Yousif, a leader in the Sumoud alliance, said pressure on both warring parties should be part of an “integrated package” to end the fighting and restore the civilian political process, rather than an isolated punitive measure.
Yasir Arman, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–Revolutionary Democratic Current, warned that piecemeal measures could lead to “managing the war rather than ending it,” calling for a joint African Union-UN roadmap to halt the fighting and preserve Sudan’s unity.
The real test of Washington’s seriousness will be whether it can move from a Security Council resolution to pursuing supply networks, including flights, land routes, brokers, companies and individuals facilitating the purchase and transfer of weapons to Sudan.
Washington does not appear to be relying on the embargo alone to end the war. Rather, the proposal is likely part of a broader effort to raise the cost of continued fighting while pushing for negotiations. US officials say the goal is not to hand victory to one side over the other, but to reduce both sides’ ability to wage an open-ended war.
Ultimately, the seriousness of the US effort will be measured by its willingness to pressure the parties’ backers, not only the Sudanese belligerents themselves. If weapons continue to flow, expanding the embargo will amount to little more than a legal framework with limited effect. But if combined with monitoring, sanctions and simultaneous diplomatic pressure to reopen negotiations, it could become one of the strongest international tools of pressure deployed since the war began.
At its core, the US proposal brings two opposing calculations into direct confrontation: Washington wants to make continuing the war harder and more costly, while both sides insist on fighting until they recover all territory. Between them, civilians stand to benefit most from any measure that genuinely reduces the flow of instruments of war, even before a comprehensive political settlement is reached.
