Why do Sudan’s humanitarian truces keep failing and who is to blame?

As the US pushes for a 90-day humanitarian truce, Sudan’s warring factions continue to prioritise military victories over mediation efforts.

A group of armed defectors from the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) arrive in vehicles as they are believed to be surrendering to the Sudanese military, in the west of Omdurman on August 19, 2026 [AFP]

Efforts to bring about truces in Sudan are continuing to hit a dead end, with fighting continuing and worsening the country’s dire humanitarian situation.

Renewed efforts, including by the United States, to implement temporary truces to allow desperately needed aid into the country have repeatedly failed. Fighting has intensified in recent months, with the United Nations warning that the humanitarian system in Sudan is on the brink of collapse.

list 1 of 4 Hundreds of thousands lack adequate shelter at Sudan’s Tawila camp

list 2 of 4 UN extends partial Sudan arms embargo for a month

list 3 of 4 Gold mine collapse kills at least 70 people in Sudan’s West Kordofan

list 4 of 4 At least 26 killed in clashes along Sudan-South Sudan border region

Aid groups have urged immediate truces to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, but rival factions continue to maintain their momentum on the battlefield and break local ceasefires.

Political survival prioritised

Sudan’s civil war erupted in April 2023 after months of tensions between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) group. It expanded into 13 out of Sudan’s 18 states and has forcibly displaced 14 million people, creating one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises and killing tens of thousands of people.

Several international mediation efforts have attempted to broker ceasefires to end fighting and bolster humanitarian efforts, amid cases of starvation.

The first major initiative, the Jeddah Declaration in May 2023 , was mediated and guaranteed by the US and Saudi Arabia. While it temporarily facilitated limited humanitarian access to affected communities, it soon collapsed after both factions repeatedly violated the terms.

Regional efforts via the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Union (AU) similarly failed when localised, short-term truces broke down, sometimes just hours after they were implemented.

The US has significantly ramped up its diplomatic engagement over the past year, spearheading the Aligned for Advancing Lifesaving and Peace in Sudan (ALPS) initiative in Geneva. Alongside Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, the UN, and the AU, Washington has pushed for direct negotiations and localised humanitarian pauses.

Responding to the escalating crisis, US Senior Advisor for Arab and African Affairs Massad Boulos last week committed $375m to humanitarian efforts in Sudan and reiterated that “there is no military solution to this conflict.”

The US has reportedly renewed calls for a 90-day humanitarian truce in Sudan and for allowing affected communities to access emergency aid.

Fighting continues on multiple fronts in Sudan. In South Kordofan, the SAF has claimed gains, while Al Jazeera sources reported that the army had repelled an attack by the RSF in Blue Nile state. Conversely, the RSF has claimed a major victory over the army and its allies in Abu Qauod, west of El Obeid. With both sides claiming to be winning, it could make the prospects of a peaceful outcome to the war even harder to achieve.

Analysts suggest the failure of these truces is ultimately tied to the political ambitions of the warring leaders – Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan of the SAF and the RSF’s head Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti.

Fathi Abu Ammar, a Sudanese academic and editor-in-chief of Al-Wasat newspaper, argued that the military leadership is deliberately stalling negotiations to maintain its grip on power.

“All these efforts that serve the interest of the Sudanese people primarily were rejected by the army, rejected by al-Burhan and Yasser al-Atta (chief of staff of the SAF), and they all tried to obstruct them by setting broad lines for the peace they want,” Abu Ammar told Al Jazeera.

He said recent comments from the two military commanders hint that al-Burhan is preparing to formalise his rule over Sudan, perhaps for decades.

Supporters of SAF believe that after a series of victories on the battlefield, it is now operating from a position of strength and does not need to compromise.

Mohammed Ibrahim al-Rashid, director of the Center for International Political Relations Studies (Ma’alim), believes the RSF is facing a comprehensive defeat and that an SAF victory will end the war.

“The defeat now is not military; the defeat is diplomatic, a defeat in the corridors of the Security Council. The militia’s (RSF) load and its support are now in a critical position,” al-Rashid told Al Jazeera.

“Therefore, the government is reassured as days go by with the military advance … we can talk about breakthroughs with … a peace that achieves the interest of the Sudanese people, not one that reproduces the crisis and reproduces the militia.”

People clear debris from a mosque that residents said was damaged in a drone attack in Khartoum, Sudan, Wednesday, August 12, 2026 [Marwan Ali/AP]

Flawed mediation efforts

While the fighting in Sudan continues, experts believe that international diplomatic efforts to end the war are essentially dead.

Cameron Hudson, former adviser to the US envoy to Sudan, believes that applying punitive measures while excluding the warring parties from negotiations is counterproductive.

“I think that there is one approach the United States has not tried since the beginning of this war, which is providing incentives and motives for peace. The United States used only pressures: Pressures through sanctions, and also accusations of using chemical weapons, and even pressure by ignoring both parties and not travelling to Sudan, and not inviting Sudanese officials to participate in international conferences,” Hudson told Al Jazeera.

“The issue of accumulating pressures one after another has not succeeded and has not worked, and therefore the United States must acknowledge that this approach has not succeeded. And until their position is revealed with the end of the war, I do not think that either of the fighting parties will proceed to stop the fighting.”

在美国推动为期 90 天的人道主义停火之际，苏丹交战各方继续将军事胜利置于调解努力之上。

2026年8月19日，一群来自准军事快速支援部队（RSF）的武装叛逃者乘坐车辆抵达恩图曼西部，据信他们正在向苏丹军队投降。[法新社]

为在苏丹实现停火所做的努力持续陷入僵局，战斗仍在继续，并加剧了该国严峻的人道主义局势。

包括美国在内的各方为促成临时停火以允许急需援助物资进入苏丹而做出的多次努力均告失败。近几个月来，战事愈演愈烈，联合国警告称，苏丹的人道主义体系已濒临崩溃。

列表 1/4：苏丹塔维拉营地数十万人缺乏足够的住所

联合国将对苏丹的部分武器禁运延长一个月（名单2/4）。

列表 3/4：苏丹西科尔多凡州金矿坍塌，至少 70 人死亡

列表 4（共 4 条）苏丹-南苏丹边境地区冲突造成至少 26 人死亡

援助组织敦促立即停火以缓解人道主义危机，但敌对派别继续在战场上保持攻势，并破坏局部停火协议。

政治生存至上

苏丹内战于2023年4月爆发，此前苏丹武装部队（SAF）和快速支援部队（RSF）之间已持续数月紧张局势。战火蔓延至苏丹18个州中的13个，导致1400万人流离失所，造成了世界上最严重的人道主义危机之一，并导致数万人死亡。

在饥荒频发的背景下，多项国际调解努力试图促成停火，以结束战斗并加强人道主义援助。

第一项重大举措是2023年5月签署的《吉达宣言》，该宣言由美国和沙特阿拉伯斡旋并担保。虽然它暂时促进了有限的人道主义援助进入受影响社区，但由于双方都屡次违反协议条款，该倡议很快就宣告失败。

通过政府间发展组织（伊加特）和非洲联盟（非盟）进行的区域性努力也同样失败了，因为局部的、短期的停火协议在实施后几个小时内就破裂了。

过去一年，美国显著加强了在苏丹的外交参与，并在日内瓦牵头发起了“携手推进苏丹生命救援与和平”（ALPS）倡议。华盛顿与瑞士、沙特阿拉伯、埃及、阿联酋、联合国和非盟一道，推动直接谈判和局部人道主义援助暂停。

针对不断升级的危机，美国负责阿拉伯和非洲事务的高级顾问马萨德·布洛斯上周承诺向苏丹的人道主义援助提供 3.75 亿美元，并重申“这场冲突没有军事解决办法”。

据报道，美国再次呼吁在苏丹实行90天的人道主义停火，并允许受影响的社区获得紧急援助。

苏丹多条战线持续交战。在南科尔多凡州，苏丹武装部队（SAF）声称取得进展，而半岛电视台报道称，苏丹军队在青尼罗州击退了快速支援部队（RSF）的进攻。另一方面，快速支援部队声称在欧拜伊德以西的阿布卡乌德地区对苏丹军队及其盟友取得了重大胜利。双方都宣称自己获胜，这使得和平结束这场战争的前景更加渺茫。

分析人士认为，这些停火协议的失败最终与交战双方领导人的​​政治野心有关——叙利亚武装部队中将阿卜杜勒·法塔赫·布尔汉和快速支援部队领导人穆罕默德·哈姆丹·达加洛（又名赫梅蒂）。

苏丹学者、《中报》总编辑法蒂·阿布·阿马尔认为，军方领导层故意拖延谈判，以维持其对权力的控制。

阿布·阿马尔告诉半岛电视台：“所有这些主要服务于苏丹人民利益的努力都遭到了军队的拒绝，遭到了布尔汉和亚西尔·阿塔（苏丹武装部队总参谋长）的拒绝，他们都试图通过为他们想要的和平设定宽泛的界限来阻挠这些努力。”

他说，这两位军事指挥官最近的言论暗示，布尔汉正准备正式确立他对苏丹的统治，统治时间可能长达数十年。

新加坡武装部队的支持者认为，在战场上取得一系列胜利后，它现在处于强势地位，无需妥协。

国际政治关系研究中心（Ma'alim）主任穆罕默德·易卜拉欣·拉希德认为，快速支援部队正面临全面失败，叙利亚武装部队的胜利将结束这场战争。

拉希德告诉半岛电视台：“现在的失败不是军事上的，而是外交上的，是在安理会走廊里的失败。民兵组织（快速支援部队）的实力和支持现在都处于危急状态。”

“因此，随着军事进展，政府逐渐感到安心……我们可以谈论取得突破……实现符合苏丹人民利益的和平，而不是重蹈危机覆辙、民兵再次出现的和平。”

2026年8月12日星期三，在苏丹喀土穆，人们正在清理一座清真寺的瓦砾，居民称该清真寺在无人机袭击中受损。[Marwan Ali/AP]

调解工作存在缺陷

尽管苏丹的战火仍在继续，但专家认为，国际社会为结束这场战争所做的外交努力实际上已经失败。

美国驻苏丹特使前顾问卡梅伦·哈德森认为，在将交战各方排除在谈判之外的情况下采取惩罚性措施，会适得其反。

“我认为，自这场战争开始以来，美国一直没有尝试过一种方法，那就是提供和平的激励和动机。美国只采取了施压手段：通过制裁施压，指控苏丹使用化学武器，甚至无视双方，不去苏丹，也不邀请苏丹官员参加国际会议，”哈德森告诉半岛电视台。

“逐步施加压力的做法并没有成功，也没有奏效，因此美国必须承认这种做法是行不通的。而且，在战争结束、双方立场明确之前，我认为交战双方都不会停止战斗。”