The best efforts to reduce violence in Sudan today are not led by diplomats

[John Ashworth]

1. The best efforts to reduce violence in Sudan today are not led by diplomats

Investing in locally grounded peacebuilding is relatively cheap and
has proven results.

Haoliang Xu
The New Humanitarian
22 April 2026
PORT SUDAN, Sudan

Four years into a devastating war, Sudan remains firmly on the
diplomatic agenda. Mediation initiatives have multiplied, but a
meaningful political breakthrough remains elusive and frustration is
mounting.

This bleak outlook assumes peace will only come once a national
ceasefire is negotiated among the principal armed actors. That
assumption, however, overlooks the reality unfolding on the ground. In
Sudan today, there are tangible reductions in violence, but they come
from local actors, not formal negotiations.

In the early months of the war, as when international efforts focused
on brokering a humanitarian truce, local communities quietly
negotiated their own arrangements. Tribal leaders, religious figures,
youth networks, and community members stepped in to mediate, often at
great personal risk. They facilitated localised ceasefires,
non-aggression pacts, humanitarian access, and escape routes for
civilians.

These efforts rarely made headlines. But they saved lives. And they
continue today.

They operate within a profoundly fractured landscape. Years of war
have entrenched polarisation, with trust eroded and grievances
growing. A national agreement may stop large-scale fighting, but it
cannot, on its own, repair the fractures within society. Even if a
peace agreement were signed tomorrow, Sudan would still be far from
real peace. This is why local peacebuilding becomes indispensable.

Saving lives in Darfur

In places like Zalingei in Central Darfur state, we’ve seen what can
be possible. When the war exploded here in 2023, youth trained in
peacebuilding stepped forward and worked with elders and other
respected community figures to respond. They relocated civilians from
frontline neighbourhoods, protected hospitals, and shared practical
safety information with communities under fire. They also operated
through locally respected intermediaries to engage armed actors,
contributing to a localised ceasefire that held for several weeks,
saving many lives amid brutal street fighting, and creating a window
for the delivery of humanitarian aid and essential services.

Across Darfur, similar dynamics are playing out now with local peace
committees and mediation structures, where community actors such as
tribal leaders and youth groups are leading the change. Against
Darfur’s highly volatile background of worsening community tensions,
these committees work continuously to de-escalate disputes, agree
shared access to resources, and maintain a minimum level of
coexistence among communities, often without external recognition but
with significant personal risk.

Less visible, but equally significant, is the resilience of the
peacebuilding infrastructure that these actors represent. Although
divided by front lines, political affiliations, or areas of control,
they exchange information and engage with one another in a context
where most other forms of connection have broken down. This shared
identity as peacebuilders serves as a bridge to sustain relationships
that will be critical for any future peace process to take hold.

This is what progress looks like in Sudan’s war – not dramatic
breakthroughs in far-away capitals, but incremental gains in small
villages: a road that remains passable, a clinic with open doors, a
conversation that does not collapse into violence.

More resources needed

Unfortunately, these incredible efforts remain under-recognised and
under-resourced.

This makes no sense. Investing in locally grounded peacebuilding is
relatively cheap and has proven results. It builds on existing
capacities rather than reinventing the wheel. It reinforces high-level
mediation because locally grounded efforts can reconnect political
processes to the realities they aim to address. It also ensures that
political agreements are not built in a vacuum but rooted in what is
actually happening on the ground.

After more than three years of war in Sudan, it is time to rethink how
we approach peace by broadening our approach to diplomacy. Peace will
not come from top-down diplomacy alone. It must also be built from the
ground up – by those who continue, even in the midst of war, to choose
dialogue over division.

If international efforts are to remain relevant in today’s crises,
they must recognise the agency of the Sudanese people as central to
shaping their own peace.

In Sudan and elsewhere, the foundations of peace are there. They do
not emerge from outside ready-made, but they can be fostered by
international efforts. It is time to align our support with that
reality.

https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2026/04/22/local-peacebuilding-reduce-violence-sudan-today-are-not-led-diplomats

END1

2. How a humanitarian truce in Sudan could pave the path to just peace
and a revived civil society

A humanitarian truce would create greater space for civil society to
operate in Sudan

Mohamed Elshabik
World Economic Forum
Apr 21, 2026

- As the Sudan war enters its fourth year, international mediators
waver on securing a humanitarian truce.
- The 2026 international conference on Sudan’s crisis distinguished
itself from earlier meetings by including Sudanese civil society
throughout the process, signifying its growing voice in calls for
peace and relief.
- Sudan’s civil society has already proven it can mobilize towards
peace in a militarized context; a humanitarian truce would create
greater space for them to operate.

Marking the third complete year of war in Sudan, an international
conference took place in Berlin in April this year that followed
earlier, inconclusive convenings.

This year, the meeting underscored a familiar reality: the
international community can spotlight Sudan’s crisis, but that cannot
substitute for practical steps to reduce civilian harm and create
space for a credible political process.

In a statement, conference co-hosts – Germany, France, the United
Kingdom, the United States, the African Union, and the European Union
– urged joint efforts to end Sudan’s war, address the humanitarian
crisis and include Sudanese voices in political solutions.

The final statement also acknowledged the role of the Quad – one of
the mediator groups, comprised of the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates – in ceasefire efforts.

However, despite a humanitarian truce being the foundation of the
Quad’s roadmap to peace and a key demand of Sudanese civil society,
the statement dismissed it as fundamental to securing humanitarian
access.

While it is true that humanitarian access should be protected as a
matter of principle and not be conditional, sidelining the need for a
time-bound, monitored and structured truce risks leaving civilians
trapped between legal, theoretical commitments on paper and violence
on the ground.

A humanitarian truce can serve as the practical bridge between
humanitarian imperatives and a political track.

How the voice of Sudan’s civil society is growing

What set the 2026 Berlin meeting apart from those in Paris in 2025 and
London in 2024 was the visible participation of members of Sudanese
civil society advocating for peace.

They engaged not only in the formal sessions but also in preparatory
meetings and side events, signalling a widening civilian accord
pushing for outcomes and not just statements.

In the days leading up to the Berlin meeting, a wave of diverse civil
society groups mobilized to advocate for the end of the war. These
included the Democratic Civil Society Platform, the Sudan Civic
Convergence Tracks, the “Barridouha – Cool it Down” campaign, the
Sudanese Group for Refugee Advocacy, and the Sudanese Women’s Groups
and Leaders.

The different campaigns and advocacy messages are part of a growing
repertoire of civil resistance actions aimed at spotlighting the war’s
devastating impact on civilians, pressing for an end to hostilities
and urging regional and international actors to prioritize Sudan in
peace efforts.

In particular, the Democratic Civil Society Platform stands out for
its structured, policy-oriented vision. Its advocacy centres on clear,
pragmatic demands encapsulated in the “Life First” campaign.

The argument is simple: establish a credible humanitarian truce
anchored in a political process with meaningful civilian
participation, while restoring essential services such as health and
education and safeguarding agricultural cycles and local economies.

A humanitarian truce is not only a logistical pause in fighting; it is
life-centred protection designed to preserve the social and economic
foundations required for enduring peace.

This momentum is not limited to traditional peace advocacy. It also
extends into sectoral initiatives that, while seemingly technical, are
politically consequential. A striking example is the National
Initiative to Save the Future of Sudanese Certificate Students,
launched in mid-March.

Emerging from what organizers described as a defining moment in
Sudanese education, the initiative seeks to address the plight of
approximately 280,000 students, many in Darfur and Kordofan, who have
been unable to sit for secondary school examinations for three
consecutive years due to the war.

The initiative’s statement declares that girls make up about 65% of
those affected, making the crisis as much about gendered exclusion as
it is about systemic collapse.

By framing education as “the last anchor” of national unity, the
initiative warns that denying a generation access to schooling risks
perpetuating the very grievances that fuel conflict.

Why a humanitarian truce matters in Sudan

Sudan’s expanding civil society movement seeks to end widespread
violence, protect civilians and revive a democratic transition
consistent with the aims of the Sudan December Revolution – the
popular uprising that led to the removal of President Omar al-Bashir
and the end of his 30-year rule.

Since the current war began, civil actors have operated in an
increasingly militarized environment shaped by remnants of the
previous regime and violent networks of war profiteers – conditions
that restrict their work, shrink civic space and make peaceful
community engagement harder.

A humanitarian truce, supported by credible coordination, monitoring
and clear obligations, would create practical space for civil society
and pro-peace movements to operate.

It would make it safer to organize, communicate and represent affected
communities; it would also help stabilize conditions for humanitarian
delivery and the restoration of basic services.

Sudanese civil society has already shown its ability to mobilize
around rights and protection in an increasingly militarized context; a
truce would allow that capacity to contribute more directly to
de-escalation and to a viable peace process.

Pro-peace campaigns could help rebalance the “correlation of forces”
within Sudan and beyond, amplifying constituencies that favour peace
negotiation while constraining those that oppose it.

In practice, similar dynamics are beginning to emerge. For instance,
campaigns such as the initiative on secondary school examinations have
already gained acknowledgement from both sides of the conflict and
opened space for negotiation.

This shows that civil resistance can, under certain conditions, push
the parties to make concessions by shifting the moral and political
terrain.

Eventually, the humanitarian truce would grant the space needed for
pro-peace civil society to be effective. This includes influencing
public opinion, marginalizing those opposing their efforts, and
empowering citizens to demand inclusion in decisions about Sudan’s
future.

Collective action is essential

Despite major obstacles, Sudanese civil society has shown creativity
and resilience at local, national and international levels. By acting,
they have built stronger connections, enabled communities, fostered
collaboration and creativity, and confronted misleading stories about
the conflict.

The potential for these efforts to contribute to peace depends on
their ability to scale up, coordinate across platforms and bridge the
gap between elite-driven advocacy and grassroots engagement, so that
calls for peace translate into tangible local benefits.

The path forward is demanding but practical. Elite advocacy remains
vital for engaging international actors and shaping policy debates; at
the same time, deeper community engagement is required to sustain
legitimacy and pressure.

Strengthening grassroots networks and organizing around everyday needs
such as safety, services, livelihoods and education can make peace
efforts relevant to daily life. Only by bridging these divides can
civil society generate enough leverage to influence belligerents and
underpin a credible peace process.

The Berlin conference is over but Sudanese civil society’s message
remains clear: peace will not arrive on its own or at a “ripe” moment
– it must be built persistently and collectively.

International partners should back Sudanese civilian initiatives such
as Life First and the National Initiative to Save the Future of
Sudanese Certificate Students, and prioritize a credible, monitored
humanitarian truce as a first, life-saving step that can widen civic
space and make an inclusive political process possible.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/04/how-a-humanitarian-truce-in-sudan-could-pave-the-path-to-just-peace-and-a-revived-civil-society/

END2
______________________
John Ashworth

ashwor...@gmail.com

+254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile, WhatsApp and Signal)

PO Box 403 - 00206, Kiserian, Kenya