Why Sudan’s Humanitarian Truces Keep Failing
Sudan has seen ceasefires announced, broken and revived repeatedly. Yet more than three years into the war, neither side appears willing to stop fighting long enough for diplomacy to take hold.
The United States is now pushing for a 90-day humanitarian truce, aimed at allowing aid to reach civilians caught in one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
But previous efforts have repeatedly collapsed, often after violations by both the Sudanese Armed Forces, or SAF, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, or RSF.
Sudan’s war began in April 2023 after tensions between the two forces erupted into open conflict.
The fighting has since spread across 13 of Sudan’s 18 states and displaced about 14 million people. Tens of thousands have been killed.
Why have previous ceasefires failed?
The first major attempt came with the Jeddah Declaration in May 2023, mediated by the United States and Saudi Arabia.
The agreement temporarily allowed limited humanitarian access, but soon broke down after repeated violations.
Later efforts led by the African Union and the regional bloc IGAD also failed to produce a lasting ceasefire, with some local truces collapsing within hours.
Diplomats have continued trying to bring the two sides back to negotiations.
The US has worked with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Switzerland, the United Nations and the African Union to push for humanitarian pauses and direct talks.
Washington has also announced $375m in humanitarian assistance and repeated its view that there is no military solution to the conflict.
Both sides still believe they can gain ground
One of the biggest obstacles to a ceasefire is that both forces continue to claim military success.
The Sudanese army has reported gains in South Kordofan, while the RSF has claimed victories in areas west of El Obeid.
The army has also said it repelled an RSF attack in Blue Nile state.
As long as both sides believe they can strengthen their position militarily, analysts say there may be little incentive to accept compromises at the negotiating table.
Political ambitions also play a role
Analysts cited in the report say the political ambitions of Sudan’s two most powerful military figures are another factor.
Army chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan leads the SAF, while Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, commands the RSF.
Sudanese academic Fathi Abu Ammar accused sections of the military leadership of obstructing peace efforts in order to retain political power.
Supporters of the army dispute that interpretation. They argue that recent military advances have strengthened the SAF’s position and that it should not accept an agreement that could allow the RSF to retain influence.
Is international mediation working?
There is also growing debate over whether the international approach has been effective.
Cameron Hudson, a former adviser to the US envoy to Sudan, said sanctions and diplomatic pressure had failed to persuade the warring parties to stop fighting.
He argued that mediators had focused heavily on pressure while offering too few incentives for the parties to pursue peace.
Civilians remain caught in the conflict
For civilians, the repeated failure of truces has meant continued displacement, shortages and difficulty accessing humanitarian assistance.
Aid organisations have called for immediate pauses in the fighting, but local ceasefires continue to break down as the two sides compete for territory and military advantage.
The latest US proposal could create another opportunity for negotiations.
But the central problem remains unchanged: neither the army nor the RSF appears ready to give up the possibility of improving its position on the battlefield.
Until that calculation changes, securing a lasting humanitarian truce is likely to remain difficult.
