The leak of documents exchanged between the US administration and Sudan’s government has revived hopes of a humanitarian truce while raising questions over whether the country is closer to ending the war or facing another failed peace initiative.
Reuters quoted senior Sudanese officials as confirming the contents of the leaked documents, which showed broad agreement on the proposal’s general principles but a fundamental dispute over the future of the Rapid Support Forces deployed in cities.
The Sudanese government conditionally accepted the idea of a truce, while US statements initially suggested Khartoum had rejected the proposal before later describing it as having accepted it. A final agreement, however, remains out of reach.
According to Reuters, the United States proposed an immediate 90-day humanitarian truce to allow aid deliveries, strengthen civilian protection and pave the way for negotiations on a permanent ceasefire, followed by a civilian-led political transition and elections.
The army-led Sudanese government made its approval conditional on the RSF’s withdrawal from all cities it has controlled since May 11, 2023, rather than carrying out the limited withdrawals stipulated in the US proposal.
A document attributed to the Sudanese government and dated June 25 showed agreement with several key principles, including recognition that there was no military solution to the conflict, a nationwide truce and the formation of a US-led coordination committee including the United Nations, the African Union and the Arab League.
It also proposed a UN mechanism to oversee and monitor implementation, guarantee humanitarian access and protect civilians.
The Sudanese response, however, demanded that the RSF withdraw from all cities under its control. Subsequent security arrangements would include the withdrawal, demobilization, disarmament and reintegration of RSF personnel under UN supervision.
The Sudanese Armed Forces would remain the country’s unified national army, with other military formations incorporated into it.
The dispute may appear limited to one provision, but it goes to the core of the initiative.
The US proposal calls for an immediate ceasefire followed by limited withdrawals and troop redeployments to facilitate aid access, particularly in North Darfur and North Kordofan. Broader military arrangements would be negotiated later as part of a permanent ceasefire.
The Sudanese response instead makes a complete RSF withdrawal from cities and a change in the military control map a precondition for the truce.
The two sides also differ over the future army. The US initiative calls for a unified national military accountable to an independent, elected civilian government, while the Sudanese response links the armed forces to the Sudanese government.
Reuters also said the US proposal called for excluding the Muslim Brotherhood and militia members accused of serious abuses. The Sudanese document used the broader term “violent extremist groups” without naming specific organizations.
At a UN Security Council meeting on June 26, Massad Boulos, senior adviser to the US president on Arab and African affairs, said Sudan’s Sovereignty Council had rejected the latest version of the proposal.
After Sudan’s representative said Sovereignty Council Chairman Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan had submitted a response including a withdrawal timetable and a peace plan, Boulos welcomed what he described as Burhan’s acceptance of the initiative.
“I am pleased to hear that Burhan has apparently accepted the latest peace proposal rather than rejected it,” Boulos said.
He added that the initiative had been prepared in consultation with Sudan’s foreign minister and members of the Sovereignty Council, coordinated with Egypt and welcomed by Saudi Arabia.
The difference appears to reflect conflicting interpretations of acceptance rather than an outright rejection.
Khartoum regards its approval of the general framework, subject to an RSF withdrawal, as conditional acceptance. Washington views that condition as altering the substance of its proposal, which is based on an immediate ceasefire without preconditions.
The two sides, therefore, remain far from agreeing on a final formula.
In a public appearance in Omdurman on Friday, Burhan did not say whether he accepted or rejected the initiative and did not disclose the substance of his government’s response.
Addressing worshippers, he said the armed forces would not accept arrangements imposed upon them or any arrangement that failed to achieve security and peace for the Sudanese people. He said military operations would continue until those he described as “aggressors and rebels” were defeated.
The leak coincided with controversy over an undisclosed meeting reportedly held in Cairo between Sovereignty Council member Shams al-Din Kabbashi and Boulos.
One account said Kabbashi met Boulos without Burhan’s knowledge and did not brief him on the discussions. Al Arabiya cited sources close to Kabbashi as saying the meeting took place at Boulos’ request, with Burhan’s knowledge, and that Burhan was informed of what was discussed.
Neither the Sudanese nor the US side has officially confirmed either account.
Khalid Omar Youssef, a senior figure in the Civil Democratic Alliance of Revolutionary Forces, known as Somoud, told Asharq Al-Awsat that the quartet’s roadmap was “the most important, comprehensive and well-structured initiative.”
He ruled out an imminent breakthrough unless pressure increased on the party obstructing the truce.
RSF position
The RSF has not issued an official statement on the US initiative or the response attributed to the army.
A senior RSF official, who requested anonymity, told Reuters that the force had received the proposal, welcomed it and submitted a written response, without disclosing its contents or its position on withdrawal.
Another senior RSF source told Asharq Al-Awsat that withdrawal from cities under the force’s control was “not open for discussion.”
Any truce should freeze both sides’ positions, the source said, while redeployment and disarmament should be addressed in negotiations on a permanent ceasefire.
Political analyst Mohammed Latif said US and regional pressure, the worsening humanitarian crisis, growing doubts among the sides’ regional backers over the possibility of a military victory, rising civilian demands and fears of Sudan’s division and institutional collapse could improve the prospects for a truce.
He warned, however, that fighting in strategically important areas, disputes over monitoring and concerns that a truce could be used for recruitment, rearmament or military repositioning could undermine the initiative.
Latif also said the widespread deployment of forces made it difficult for both leaderships to control all fighting formations, meaning that a limited violation by a small group could bring an agreement down.
Domestic and foreign actors benefiting from the war could also derail a truce that conflicted with their interests, he said.
The available information suggests Sudan has entered a more substantive negotiating phase involving written proposals, official responses, continuing contacts and growing international pressure.
But an end to the war does not appear imminent.
The army insists that an RSF withdrawal from cities must be a condition for a truce, while the RSF has not formally stated its position, although unofficial indications suggest it rejects the demand.
Sudan, therefore, appears closer to a more serious round of negotiations than to a final ceasefire agreement.
Success will depend on whether mediators can reach a phased formula for withdrawals, establish enforceable monitoring mechanisms and persuade both sides to accept a truce that gives neither an advanced military or political advantage.
