Confusion and Anticipation in Port Sudan
Progress Center for Policies – London – Policy Assessment:
Introduction:
In a televised statement, Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti) announced a unilateral, three-month nationwide ceasefire, claiming it was a direct response to the appeal made by former U.S. President Donald Trump and the International Quartet (United States, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt). The declaration came shortly after General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan rejected an identical proposal, giving the initiative significant political weight amid the ongoing competition for legitimacy between the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). The announcement generated extensive media coverage and mixed political reactions, which this report summarizes and assesses.
Media Coverage – International and regional media responses reflected a wide spectrum of interpretations:
-International outlets, including Reuters, portrayed the ceasefire as a “humanitarian truce” aligned with the U.S.–Quartet plan, while also emphasizing the RSF’s record of alleged mass atrocities.
-Arab media, especially in the Gulf and Sudan, framed the initiative as a tactical political maneuver aimed at reshaping the RSF’s international standing, whereas pro-army outlets dismissed it as a “political charade.”
-Local Sudanese reactions were divided: pro-government accounts expressed deep suspicion, while civil society voices offered conditional support pending visible compliance on the ground.
Political and Military Dimensions:
Public debate in Sudan highlighted two core concerns for the SAF:
-whether the ceasefire would allow the RSF to consolidate militarily, and
-whether Sudan risks drifting toward a Libya-style divided-state scenario.
For the RSF, the initiative serves as a tool to present itself internationally as a “negotiable actor” and to strengthen its positioning in any future political talks. Politically, the ceasefire signals renewed U.S.–Quartet engagement in Sudan, driven by concerns linked to Red Sea stability and the broader Horn of Africa security environment.
Humanitarian and Economic Dimensions:
Amid one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, the ceasefire—if honored—could provide a critical window for:
protecting civilians, expanding humanitarian access, and stabilizing the conditions necessary for future economic recovery.
However, skepticism persists due to:
-the absence of clear implementation guarantees,
-the possibility of continued attacks by either side, and
-the SAF’s insistence on pursuing a military solution should it reject the truce.
Assessment of U.S. and Quartet Reactions
Responses from Washington and Quartet capitals reflect cautious acceptance shaped by geopolitical and humanitarian imperatives:
-United States: Views the ceasefire as an opening for renewed diplomacy but remains wary due to the RSF’s record and the fragility of both sides’ commitments. Washington’s approach encourages engagement but is conditioned on verification and credible monitoring.
-Saudi Arabia & UAE: Consider the truce essential for containing a conflict that threatens Red Sea security and regional supply routes. Riyadh frames the ceasefire as necessary for de-escalation, while Abu Dhabi sees it as an opportunity to recalibrate its regional role in Sudan. Both emphasize the need for strict monitoring, control of arms flows, and withdrawal of forces from civilian areas.
-Egypt: Adopts a quieter yet strategically cautious stance. Cairo fears the truce could weaken the SAF, which it views as critical to its southern security. As a result, Egypt supports the ceasefire only if it preserves the army’s long-term stability.
Despite differing perspectives, Washington and the Quartet acknowledge the initiative as the most viable current opportunity to slow Sudan’s collapse—though its success depends on mutual acceptance and credible compliance, which remain uncertain given Burhan’s rejection and persistent battlefield distrust.
Conclusions:
Hemedti’s declaration reflects a strategic move aligned with international pressure, signaling a convergence between U.S.–Quartet diplomacy and Sudan’s internal power struggle. Media coverage indicates the initiative is Sudan’s best available opportunity to halt violence, yet skepticism remains high due to the RSF’s record and lack of unified national support.
The SAF’s concerns about RSF exploitation of the ceasefire are valid, making any agreement fragile without robust monitoring mechanisms and political guarantees. The initiative offers a critical humanitarian and economic opening, but only if linked to institutional reforms, including the establishment of a unified, professional national army.
The RSF has gained a stronger diplomatic position, pressing both the SAF and civilian forces to shape a broader roadmap toward peace, democratic transition, and reconstruction. The ceasefire’s viability ultimately depends on commitment, transparency, and Quartet enforcement—otherwise it risks becoming merely symbolic or a short-term tactical maneuver.
