Sudan Army Chief Al-Burhan Criticizes Geneva Talks, Pledges to Continue Battle Against RSF
Sudan’s ongoing conflict has escalated to alarming levels, with the nation’s army chief, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, taking a defiant stance against peace talks in Geneva. The negotiations, aimed at alleviating human suffering and brokering a ceasefire, have been met with criticism from Burhan, who has vowed to continue fighting the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) for as long as necessary. This article delves into Burhan’s rationale behind rejecting the peace talks, the role of international mediators, and the broader implications for Sudan’s future.
Burhan’s Rejection of Peace Talks
On August 19, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Sudan’s de facto ruler and leader of the Transitional Sovereignty Council, openly criticized the peace talks held in Switzerland. Burhan’s remarks came during a press briefing in Port Sudan, where he accused the negotiations of being a ploy to “whitewash” the RSF and the nations supporting them. “We will not put down our weapons as the rebellion continues. We will not co-exist with the rebels and we will not forgive them,” Burhan stated emphatically. His words reflect a deep-seated distrust towards the RSF and a determination to maintain military dominance, even at the cost of prolonged conflict.
The Geneva talks, which took place from August 14 to 18, were intended to address the dire humanitarian situation in Sudan and establish a lasting ceasefire. However, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by Burhan, refused to participate in person, citing dissatisfaction with the format of the talks. Despite ongoing virtual communication between the SAF and mediators, Burhan’s absence from the talks has been a significant hindrance to achieving substantial progress.
International Mediators’ Role and Challenges
The Geneva talks were facilitated by the United States, with additional mediation from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. These countries sought to secure increased humanitarian aid and pave the way for a national cessation of hostilities. However, the lack of direct engagement from the Sudanese army proved to be a major obstacle.
The mediators issued a statement acknowledging the limitations imposed by the SAF’s absence: “Though we were in consistent communication with SAF virtually, we regret their decision not to be present, and we believe that limited our ability to make more substantial progress towards key issues, particularly a national cessation of hostilities.”
Tom Perriello, the US Sudan envoy, echoed this sentiment during a press conference in Geneva, expressing hope that the talks would generate momentum for more significant steps in the future. Nevertheless, he conceded that progress had been slow and insufficient to address the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis gripping Sudan.
Humanitarian Crisis and the Need for Action
Sudan’s conflict, which began last year, has precipitated one of the world’s most severe humanitarian and displacement crises. More than 25 million people in Sudan are facing acute hunger, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a UN-backed body monitoring global hunger. The war has displaced over 10 million people and exacerbated a public health disaster, with famine, disease, and mass displacement becoming grim realities for countless Sudanese civilians.
Despite the dire situation, both the Sudanese army and the RSF have shown little regard for civilian welfare. Rights groups have repeatedly called on both sides to avoid harm to civilians and allow humanitarian access, but their pleas have largely gone unheeded.
Last week, the warring parties agreed to improve access to humanitarian aid, identifying two key routes: the Adre border crossing with Chad, leading into the Darfur region, and the Dabbah Road from Port Sudan on the Red Sea. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen.
