Geneva talks are only the start of bringing Sudan's war to an end

Members of Sudan's armed forces take part in a military parade on Army Day in Gadaref on August 14. AFP

The conflict in Sudan is not one that is going to lend itself to quick fixes. For that reason, hopes have not been very high for the round of negotiations that was launched in Geneva last week.

For a start, the Sudanese Armed Forces are not in official attendance. This is despite their leader, Gen Abdel Fattah Al Burhan, receiving a US State Department invitation, in a message from Secretary of State Antony Blinken. This little-noticed development may have been intended to promote the Geneva talks, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.

More probably, Gen Al Burhan is holding out for next month’s 79th UN General Assembly meeting in New York. The US has an obligation to grant him a visa to represent Sudan. So his side’s decision to boycott Geneva does not seem likely to derail his trip, should he decide to go as he did last year.

Washington might wish, however, that it had not come down so decisively on his side. US officials have given heavy backing to the Geneva talks, promising that these negotiations would take on the Jeddah mediation agenda that has been at the centre of international efforts to end the bloodshed in Sudan.

The opposition Rapid Support Forces, on the other hand, have had a delegation in Geneva from the outset. In fact, they have had one from the time the preparatory talks were held there.

In an acknowledgement of the importance of the work done by Saudi Arabia in keeping the diplomatic track open, the Geneva talks have the same three agenda principles: a ceasefire, humanitarian access and a monitoring regime.

The Jeddah Declaration may not have been implemented by the opposing sides, but it holds importance because those sides signed up to it in the first place. While the three goals seem far away from being achieved, they are the pillars that any peace talks must be built on.

And indeed, even though the army representatives have not turned up in Switzerland, there has been some small progress. Participants and observers at the talks have welcomed announcements that the Adre border crossing as well as the Dabbah route to the provinces of Darfur and Kordofan would be opened by the SAF, as the factions agreed to co-operate with humanitarian deliveries.

While Tom Perriello, the US special envoy for Sudan, conceded that face-to-face talks between the protagonists would not be possible, he told a briefing at the outset of the week that gains, such as the announcement to open the routes, would be important. With the scale of food deprivation now thought to endanger 25 million Sudanese, any progress in this regard is to be welcomed.

Brinkmanship by Gen Al Burhan has seemed to be an outcome of the recent assassination attempt that he survived. But it is also true that among his own allies, the social media campaign to boycott Geneva has left him with less wriggle room on staying away from the Swiss initiative. Some diplomats suggest that this is because the move to convene the meeting was seen to be popular.

The mood in the city of Port Sudan seems to be more resolute and confident than it has been previously. But what is not likely to shift much, as a result of the current rounds of attempted mediation, are the timeframes for a resolution. This is partly because of the temporary factors playing out for the armed forces’ leadership.

Focus on Sudan can be expected to play a big role at next month’s UNGA meeting. The Saudi determination to see the commitments made in March 2023 in Jeddah cannot be doubted. And the wider steering group of countries is also determined to keep this process on track.

At some point, the new UK government can be expected to use its role as the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, too. The governing Labour party’s appointees at the Foreign Office can be expected to come under pressure from the Sudanese community to show that London is fulfilling its historical obligations to the country.

Despite the evolving developments on the ground and the swings of initiative on the battlefield, these are the factors that will dictate the timeframe for meaningful talks.

Full-scale negotiations are certainly possible. If nothing else, the meeting in Geneva demonstrates that potential, even if they are marred by the failure to get full representation. Yet it is important to note that, while the political will or appetite for talks can be nurtured, it is very fragile and starting from a long way behind where it should be.

Right now, the mood among the factions and their commanders is clearly not ripe to take new risks for negotiations. This is where the work of the special envoys on the conflict is especially crucial in the months ahead. There are openings for negotiations, and only back-and-forth shuttling between the protagonists can get the situation to a better place.

This work has its myriad challenges, but if humanitarian aid access can be improved as a result of Geneva, the painstaking efforts could start to bear fruit across the wider agenda.