Sudan Between Chaos and Transformation: What the Regional and International Community and the Sudan

01:08 AM December, 17 2025

Sudanese Online
محمد عبدالله ابراهيم-الخرطوم-السودان
My Library
Short URL



Sudan Between Chaos and Transformation: What the Regional and International Community and the Sudanese Civil Society Must Do to End the Crisis (2-2)


Ending the Sudanese crisis requires a radical shift in the approach of both the international community and the Sudanese civil forces. To achieve this goal, it is not enough to simply declare a desire for peace; international and regional will must be translated into clear and integrated steps that turn global commitment to peace into concrete actions that immediately end the war and put an end to the political and diplomatic chaos that has hindered all previous initiatives. Peace is not a theoretical option, but an urgent practical necessity, and the success of any future path depends on everyone’s commitment to implementing the following steps:

First: Unifying Will and Vision… The Pivotal Starting Point to End the Crisis

Before delving into any political, security, or humanitarian approach, the fundamental question that the regional and international communities continue to avoid confronting openly is: why have all attempts to end the Sudanese crisis failed so far؟

The answer, beyond conciliatory diplomatic rhetoric, lies in the chaos of initiatives, the multiplicity of tracks, and the absence of a unified collective will. Regional and international initiatives have transformed from tools for solutions into a political burden, contributing to dispersing efforts, weakening pressure, and granting the warring parties wide room for maneuver, evasion, and emptying any commitments of their content.

This fragmentation has allowed the warring parties to exploit contradictions among mediators, play across multiple platforms, and move from one table to another without political or ethical cost, practically extending the war, deepening the humanitarian catastrophe, and undermining Sudanese trust in the seriousness of the international community. Therefore, the first and most important step, which the regional and international communities must take, does not start with statements of condemnation or new negotiation rounds, but by correcting the structural flaw in the approach to crisis management itself, through:

Unifying Initiatives and Negotiation Tracks
A high-level regional-international meeting should be convened, including all relevant actors concerned with the Sudanese crisis, aiming to dismantle dual-track processes and merge existing initiatives, including the Jeddah Platform, IGAD initiatives, and the Quartet mechanisms, into a single, clear, and binding political framework. Agreement on a single initiative, fully and unconditionally supported politically, would end the negotiating absurdity, close the doors for circumvention, and restore a minimum level of seriousness and effectiveness to the political process. A unified track not only gives negotiations real momentum but sends a clear message to the warring parties that the international community is no longer an open platform for bargaining, but a decisive partner imposing the logic of ending the war, not managing it.

Formulating a Shared Vision and Unified Program .. From Managing the Crisis to Ending It
It is not enough for regional and international actors to sit at the same table unless the goal is to produce a shared political vision and a unified action program, moving beyond diplomatic generalities to clear, actionable commitments. The essence of the Sudanese crisis lies not only in the multiplicity of conflict parties but in the absence of a comprehensive framework that clearly defines how, with what tools, and for whose benefit this war is to be ended.

This vision must include all conflict parties, alongside real political and civil forces, reflecting a solid, unambiguous will to end the war-not merely manage or contain it temporarily. This requires coordinated, tangible pressure on all parties without exception-a pressure that goes beyond statements and empty courtesies, translating into real political and economic costs for those obstructing peace.

Even more critically, the continued divergence of international visions and agendas has turned diplomacy into contradictory messaging, with each envoy or international official meeting conflict parties with different priorities, sending confusing signals to military leadership and giving them full justification to procrastinate, buy time, and undermine any effort to build unified and effective pressure. In this context, international divisions are no longer a neutral factor but become a direct element in prolonging the war. Therefore, unifying vision and program is not a formal or political luxury but the essential guarantee to end the diplomatic chaos that has allowed fighting to continue, violations to escalate, and the state to collapse. While some countries have their own interests and calculations, a minimum standard of political ethics and humanitarian responsibility demands that these interests not be pursued at the expense of Sudanese lives, national unity, security, stability, or regional security.

Second: Roadmap for Serious Action .. From Declared Intentions to Binding Measures

Once the will is unified and a shared vision crystallized, moving from rhetoric to action becomes a political and moral necessity that cannot be postponed. The Sudanese crisis no longer suffers from a lack of initiatives or concepts, but from the absence of strict and binding measures that compel conflict parties to change their behavior. Any talk of a settlement without real enforcement tools will merely reproduce past failures. In this context, a set of measures must be implemented by the regional and international communities with full seriousness, foremost among them:

Exerting Real and Effective Political Pressure
Regional and international will must integrate, not merely run in parallel, transforming from a concerned observer into a pressing actor with continuous, escalating influence on all conflict parties-military and civilian alike-without exception or selectivity. The pressure required is not symbolic or seasonal but targeted, measurable, and coupled with clear accountability mechanisms, leaving no room for any party to escape or buy time through political maneuvering.

Experience has shown that the absence of sustained pressure was a core reason for the continuation of the war and the disintegration of previous negotiation tracks. Whenever pressure receded, violence expanded, and ambiguous messaging reinforced the logic of force over political resolution. Therefore, any initiative unsupported by tangible pressure remains threatened with failure from the outset. Additionally, major international powers bear a special responsibility to formulate a clear, consistent, and non-double-standard policy toward Sudan-one that explicitly aims to end the war and restore democratic transition, rather than adopting contradictory or short-sighted pragmatic policies that may, intentionally or unintentionally, support anti-democratic forces and undermine prospects for building a stable civil state. International hesitation here is not neutrality but an active factor in perpetuating the conflict.

Drying Up Financial and Military Sources… Striking the War’s Infrastructure
The war in Sudan is no longer an isolated internal conflict but a project financed and managed through a complex network of states, intermediaries, and illicit war economy networks that benefit from sustaining violence. All conflict parties, to varying degrees, receive direct or indirect support from external sources and transnational economic networks, making ending the war impossible without dismantling its financial and military infrastructure.

A serious approach to ending the conflict requires moving beyond condemning violence to targeting its vital arteries, through a set of strict measures, foremost among them: imposing targeted international sanctions on organized plunder networks and illegal gold trade, which today represent one of the main sources of war financing for both parties. Gold extraction and smuggling are no longer peripheral economic activities but constitute a fully integrated war economy, providing liquidity, weapons, influence, and undermining any potential political path.

This includes freezing financial assets of military leaders, affiliated entities and front companies involved in gross human rights violations, thereby ending the economic impunity that has enabled warlords to recycle violence for increasing profit. It also requires strict and transparent international monitoring of arms and military equipment flows to Sudan, with effective tracking mechanisms, rather than nominal bans easily circumvented.

Above all, maximum political and diplomatic pressure must be applied to countries that continue, explicitly or implicitly, to supply conflict parties with weapons or facilitate their delivery, whether for geopolitical interests or narrow economic calculations. States that fuel the war cannot be considered neutral mediators; they become de facto indirect parties to the conflict, bearing moral and legal responsibility for continued atrocities and the total collapse of the Sudanese state.

Humanitarian Response and Civilian Protection .. From Emergency Relief to International Duty
The unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan presents a severe test of the international system’s credibility, as the tragedy can no longer be contained through traditional humanitarian appeals or piecemeal responses. The scale of violations and the extent of displacement and famine require an urgent, comprehensive, and expanded international response, managed as a political and security priority rather than a marginal humanitarian file.

This begins with ensuring safe and unconditional humanitarian access to all affected areas, through immediate and direct pressure on warring parties to stop using aid as a weapon of war, and to allow relief to pass unhindered by obstacles, extortion, or politicization. Establishing safe and sustainable humanitarian corridors under effective international monitoring is also required to protect aid workers and guarantee aid reaches those in need.

Equally, humanitarian action cannot be separated from civilian protection, which, despite its centrality in international humanitarian law, has been largely ineffective on the ground. Activating this principle requires establishing independent international mechanisms to monitor serious violations, document them, and protect civilians from mass killings, sexual violence, forced starvation, and other crimes committed in near-total impunity. Absence of protection mechanisms is not neutrality; it practically translates into a green light for continued crimes. Additionally, urgent financial and logistical support must be provided to Sudanese refugees and neighboring countries hosting millions fleeing the war, to alleviate the increasing burden and prevent the refugee crisis from destabilizing the region. Refugees’ suffering is no less severe than that of internally displaced persons and may be even harsher given the reduction of international funding and the suspension of many support programs they previously relied on. Ignoring this dimension threatens not only refugees’ dignity and right to protection but also regional security.

Supporting a Unified Civilian Alternative .. The Condition for Sustainable Peace
No peace can be sustainable in Sudan without a strong and unified civilian democratic partner capable of filling the political vacuum left by the war and curbing the resurgence of militarization in new forms. The absence of such a partner not only hampers transition but opens the door for reproducing conflict under different labels. Supporting civil forces should therefore not be treated as a parallel path but as one of the pillars for ending the war and building the state. In this context, the international community bears a direct responsibility to move from “civilian support” rhetoric to practical, systematic action, through two integrated tracks:

First: Pressure to Unify Civilian Visions

International and regional envoys must deliver a single, clear, and unambiguous political message to Sudanese civil forces: partnership and support require agreement on a minimum program focused on ending the war, restoring the civilian democratic transition, and prioritizing national interest over narrow partisan and factional agendas. Civil fragmentation is no longer merely an internal crisis but a factor exploited by military forces to justify continued control and political monopoly.

Second: Supporting Civilian Cohesion and Building a Democratic Civil Front

This requires direct political and logistical support to democratic civil forces to help them overcome historical divisions and formulate a shared political vision for the post-war phase. In this context, the recent meetings of anti-war civil forces, held in Nairobi and concluded on Tuesday, 16 December 2025, are particularly significant, as they clearly addressed the formation of the broadest possible anti-war civil front, considered indispensable to reclaiming political initiative from warlords. This step, noted in Part One of this article, ranks among the most important political developments at the current moment, amid Sudan’s and Sudanese citizens’ comprehensive collapse. Its success does not rely on mere declarations or expanding the coalition’s formal base but requires critical learning from past alliances, which often failed due to lack of governance frameworks to manage disputes and divergent visions.

Before establishing a broad civil front, it is essential to set clear organizational and political foundations governing decision-making, managing differences, and resolving internal disputes, protecting the alliance from divisions and fragmentation, and ensuring its continuity and cohesion. Any front without solid rules quickly becomes a burden on the reform project rather than an effective tool to stop the war and achieve the desired civilian democratic transition.

Conclusion: From Managing Chaos to Building Peace

The Sudanese experience leaves no doubt that war persists not only through military force but also through failed politics, collusion and inertia, and managing the crisis instead of confronting it fundamentally. Each of the previous pillars—unifying will and vision, exerting effective political pressure, drying up funding and armaments, protecting civilians, and supporting a unified civilian alternative—does not represent a separate path but together forms an integrated system; any effort to end the war collapses with the failure of one of its pillars.

Continuing the current international approach, based on multiple platforms, contradictory messaging, and fragmented solutions, will only recycle the conflict in new forms, leaving Sudan hostage to militarized politics and the war economy. Lack of unified vision grants the warring parties not just additional time but empties any talk of peace of its substance, turning diplomacy into a cover for prolonging the tragedy. The time has come for the international community to move from the role of the hesitant mediator to that of a serious, active partner, linking words to actions, mediation to real leverage, humanitarian aid to actual civilian protection, and political support to clear backing of the civilian democratic alternative. Without a strong and unified civil partner, peace will be a fragile truce, soon to collapse at the first test.

At its core, the Sudanese crisis tests not only the Sudanese capacity to endure but also the credibility of the international system itself: is it ready to defend its proclaimed principles of democracy and human rights, or will it continue to sacrifice them on the altar of narrow interests and short-term calculations؟ Neutrality in the face of a war of this magnitude is no longer a moral option, and hesitation is no longer a political stance but a form of tacit complicity.

Ending the war in Sudan is not impossible, but it requires political courage, moral clarity, and collective will that breaks the logic of managing chaos and establishes the logic of building peace. Without this radical transformation, the war will continue, not because it is inevitable, but because the world has once again chosen to look away, opening the door to Sudan’s disintegration, threatening the security and stability of the entire region, and leaving the tragedy as a stain on the record of the international system for decades to come.



Mohammed Abdullah Ibrahim
Human Rights Defender
[email protected]

Arabic Forum