Those responsible for Sudan’s war have no business being involved in the peace
10 views
Skip to first unread message
John Ashworth
Oct 11, 2025, 1:03:32 PMOct 11
to Group
Those responsible for Sudan’s war have no business being involved in the peace
The war is now deemed responsible for the deaths of up to 150,000
people in mass casualty incidents and of over 500,000 people due to
hunger.
Muthoni Wanyeki
The New Humanitarian
2 October 2025
NAIROBI
The UN General Assembly has ended. Coverage was devoted to the French
president being stuck on New York sidewalks due to the passage of the
US president’s convoy; to the US president lambasting the UN for a
faulty escalator and a stalled teleprompter; to the same US
president’s erroneous remarks about (among so many other things) solar
and wind power.
But many things happened at UNGA besides the weird and wonderful. Lip
service was paid to the ongoing atrocities and outrages in Palestine,
Sudan, and Ukraine. Beyond the lip service, however, there did seem
(finally!) to be some energy on the possibilities for Sudan.
Sadly, this energy results not from the efforts of the Sudanese people
and their various civic, anti-war campaigns and formations; nor from
the efforts of regional and continental bodies tasked with restoring
and maintaining peace and security in Africa. No, it results instead
from a new American push with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates – together with Egypt, the lone African actor in the room.
First, a reminder of the stakes for the Sudanese people.
Not for nothing is Sudan cited as “the worst humanitarian crisis in
the world”. The data is difficult to ascertain, but the war is now
deemed responsible for the deaths of up to 150,000 people in mass
casualty incidents, military offensives, and summary executions.
150,000 people. That’s more than double the deaths Israel has caused
in Palestine during its offensive in Gaza (not that human life is
relative… it is not).
The war is now also responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 people
due to hunger and starvation. That’s half a million people. Half a
million people.
It is therefore unsurprising the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR) estimates
that, as of this month, 11.8 million people have been displaced
because of the war – over seven million internally, and over three
million through the region and beyond.
The figures are mind-boggling if we sit with them and let them sink in.
Obviously, the greatest responsibility for this momentous human
tragedy rests with the two belligerents – the Rapid Support Forces
(RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).
That they and their leaders could let this go on for so long and at
such a high cost – to human life and civilian infrastructure – beggars
belief. Having orchestrated the coup in October 2021 against the
civilian-led transitional government, and then this war in April 2023,
they and their leaders should have nothing to do with Sudan’s post-war
future: There will be a post-war future, and that future must be
civilian governed.
This is the point made by all Sudanese civic, anti-war formations,
whether implicitly or explicitly. They tentatively welcomed the Quad
statement – quickly followed by sanction announcements by the US
Treasury.
Yes, they welcomed the use of US carrots and sticks with external
actors arming and financing the two belligerents; because those
external actors – including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab
Emirates (not just Türkiye and Iran) – need to be reined in.
And yes, the welcome was tentative; because neither the two
belligerents nor the Quad have any business doing more than
facilitating how domestic actors come to agreement on resolving the
root causes of the war and transitional arrangements to a future
civilian government.
The Sudanese civic, anti-war formations were not the only ones to
tentatively welcome the process proposed by the Quad: a humanitarian
pause of three months; a permanent ceasefire; a transitional process
of up to nine months, leading to a civilian-governed future.
So too did the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and
the African Union (AU). They were quick off the mark to proclaim that
the tenets of the Quad statement were in line with their own; and to
re-initiate a flurry of consultations with Sudanese civic, anti-war
formations – the most notable being Somoud, the umbrella of civic
actors, resistance committees and emergency response rooms, unions and
political parties fronted by former prime minister Abdalla Hamdok.
They even – in an interesting about-turn – reached out to the RSF’s
parallel government (parallel to the SAF’s Transitional Sovereign
Council).
Clearly the US memo was received and well absorbed. SAF, the National
Congress Party – and the Islamists behind them – are all now as out as
the RSF for their crimes against humanity. If Egypt could move on the
SAF and the UAE on the RSF, who are IGAD and the AU to refuse?
Who, indeed, are IGAD and the AU?
Obviously, we must be happy at any sort of movement towards resolution
and a civilian future in Sudan. But, honestly, we must also be
embarrassed by the lack of action by IGAD and the AU.
There have been communiques, press statements, convenings, sessions,
shuttle diplomacy, and attempts to mediate.
There has been the IGAD Special Envoy on Sudan; the AU Special
Representative and Head of the AU Liaison Office in Sudan; the IGAD
and AU roadmaps; the Expanded Mechanism for the Resolution of the
Conflict in Sudan; the High-Level Panel on Sudan, chaired by the AU
High Representative for Silencing the Guns, on top of the AU Panel of
the Wise; the AU Special Envoy for Women, Peace and Security; the AU
Peace and Security Council; the AU Commissioner for Political Affairs,
Peace and Security; older mechanisms like the High Representative for
the Horn, and the High-Level Implementation Panel for Sudan and South
Sudan.
There has been a plethora of mechanisms – a surplus even – with not
even one apparently able to move the needle. The belligerents kept
doing what they were doing (destroying the country and its people).
The external actors kept arming and financing them, and… nothing
happened.
Is the new US stance likely to change this? Will the duplicitous
members of the Quad stay their apparent turnaround?
Sudanese civic, anti-war formations have no choice but to seize on
this apparent opening. As for IGAD and the AU… words fail us.
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2025/10/02/those-responsible-sudan-war-conflict-have-no-business-being-involved-peace
END
______________________
John Ashworth
ashwor...@gmail.com
+254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile, WhatsApp and Signal)
PO Box 403 - 00206, Kiserian, Kenya
The war is now deemed responsible for the deaths of up to 150,000
people in mass casualty incidents and of over 500,000 people due to
hunger.
Muthoni Wanyeki
The New Humanitarian
2 October 2025
NAIROBI
The UN General Assembly has ended. Coverage was devoted to the French
president being stuck on New York sidewalks due to the passage of the
US president’s convoy; to the US president lambasting the UN for a
faulty escalator and a stalled teleprompter; to the same US
president’s erroneous remarks about (among so many other things) solar
and wind power.
But many things happened at UNGA besides the weird and wonderful. Lip
service was paid to the ongoing atrocities and outrages in Palestine,
Sudan, and Ukraine. Beyond the lip service, however, there did seem
(finally!) to be some energy on the possibilities for Sudan.
Sadly, this energy results not from the efforts of the Sudanese people
and their various civic, anti-war campaigns and formations; nor from
the efforts of regional and continental bodies tasked with restoring
and maintaining peace and security in Africa. No, it results instead
from a new American push with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates – together with Egypt, the lone African actor in the room.
First, a reminder of the stakes for the Sudanese people.
Not for nothing is Sudan cited as “the worst humanitarian crisis in
the world”. The data is difficult to ascertain, but the war is now
deemed responsible for the deaths of up to 150,000 people in mass
casualty incidents, military offensives, and summary executions.
150,000 people. That’s more than double the deaths Israel has caused
in Palestine during its offensive in Gaza (not that human life is
relative… it is not).
The war is now also responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 people
due to hunger and starvation. That’s half a million people. Half a
million people.
It is therefore unsurprising the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR) estimates
that, as of this month, 11.8 million people have been displaced
because of the war – over seven million internally, and over three
million through the region and beyond.
The figures are mind-boggling if we sit with them and let them sink in.
Obviously, the greatest responsibility for this momentous human
tragedy rests with the two belligerents – the Rapid Support Forces
(RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).
That they and their leaders could let this go on for so long and at
such a high cost – to human life and civilian infrastructure – beggars
belief. Having orchestrated the coup in October 2021 against the
civilian-led transitional government, and then this war in April 2023,
they and their leaders should have nothing to do with Sudan’s post-war
future: There will be a post-war future, and that future must be
civilian governed.
This is the point made by all Sudanese civic, anti-war formations,
whether implicitly or explicitly. They tentatively welcomed the Quad
statement – quickly followed by sanction announcements by the US
Treasury.
Yes, they welcomed the use of US carrots and sticks with external
actors arming and financing the two belligerents; because those
external actors – including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab
Emirates (not just Türkiye and Iran) – need to be reined in.
And yes, the welcome was tentative; because neither the two
belligerents nor the Quad have any business doing more than
facilitating how domestic actors come to agreement on resolving the
root causes of the war and transitional arrangements to a future
civilian government.
The Sudanese civic, anti-war formations were not the only ones to
tentatively welcome the process proposed by the Quad: a humanitarian
pause of three months; a permanent ceasefire; a transitional process
of up to nine months, leading to a civilian-governed future.
So too did the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and
the African Union (AU). They were quick off the mark to proclaim that
the tenets of the Quad statement were in line with their own; and to
re-initiate a flurry of consultations with Sudanese civic, anti-war
formations – the most notable being Somoud, the umbrella of civic
actors, resistance committees and emergency response rooms, unions and
political parties fronted by former prime minister Abdalla Hamdok.
They even – in an interesting about-turn – reached out to the RSF’s
parallel government (parallel to the SAF’s Transitional Sovereign
Council).
Clearly the US memo was received and well absorbed. SAF, the National
Congress Party – and the Islamists behind them – are all now as out as
the RSF for their crimes against humanity. If Egypt could move on the
SAF and the UAE on the RSF, who are IGAD and the AU to refuse?
Who, indeed, are IGAD and the AU?
Obviously, we must be happy at any sort of movement towards resolution
and a civilian future in Sudan. But, honestly, we must also be
embarrassed by the lack of action by IGAD and the AU.
There have been communiques, press statements, convenings, sessions,
shuttle diplomacy, and attempts to mediate.
There has been the IGAD Special Envoy on Sudan; the AU Special
Representative and Head of the AU Liaison Office in Sudan; the IGAD
and AU roadmaps; the Expanded Mechanism for the Resolution of the
Conflict in Sudan; the High-Level Panel on Sudan, chaired by the AU
High Representative for Silencing the Guns, on top of the AU Panel of
the Wise; the AU Special Envoy for Women, Peace and Security; the AU
Peace and Security Council; the AU Commissioner for Political Affairs,
Peace and Security; older mechanisms like the High Representative for
the Horn, and the High-Level Implementation Panel for Sudan and South
Sudan.
There has been a plethora of mechanisms – a surplus even – with not
even one apparently able to move the needle. The belligerents kept
doing what they were doing (destroying the country and its people).
The external actors kept arming and financing them, and… nothing
happened.
Is the new US stance likely to change this? Will the duplicitous
members of the Quad stay their apparent turnaround?
Sudanese civic, anti-war formations have no choice but to seize on
this apparent opening. As for IGAD and the AU… words fail us.
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2025/10/02/those-responsible-sudan-war-conflict-have-no-business-being-involved-peace
END
______________________
John Ashworth
ashwor...@gmail.com
+254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile, WhatsApp and Signal)
PO Box 403 - 00206, Kiserian, Kenya
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages