Donald Trump vows to tackle atrocities in Sudan: what difference can he make?

Sudan, devastated by war for two and a half years, is in ruins. Half a dozen peace initiatives have failed, and none of them have been able to pressure or persuade regional power brokers to push for a compromise.

Many Sudanese wonder if the world cares whether they live or die.

Could that be about to change with direct intervention from the Oval Office?

By US President Donald Trump’s own admission, the conflict was not on his “lists to get involved in. I thought it was just something crazy and out of control.”

But that was before a meeting at the White House 10 days ago with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. He informed the president of what was happening and asked him to intervene.

Afterwards, Trump said, “We’re going to start working on Sudan.”

He later posted on social media that “tremendous atrocities are occurring in Sudan. It has become the most violent place on Earth” and pledged to work with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to end the violence.

In fact, the United States had already participated in negotiations, but perhaps Trump’s personal influence over the leaders of those allies – all accused of backing one side or another in Sudan – could make the difference.

With nearly 12 million people driven from their homes and famine continuing in some parts of the country, Sudanese are desperate for something – anything – that can break the stalemate.

Trump’s comments on the situation came just days after the civil war reached a new nadir of horror in late October.

Following a 500-day hunger siege, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured the town of el-Fasher, the army’s last stronghold in the westernmost region of Darfur.

RSF fighters rampaged through the city, killing, raping and looting. Estimates of the number of people who perished in this ethnically selective massacre range from 5,000 to more.

Images recorded with mobile phones by the murderers themselves circulated on social networks, in which they tormented, tortured and killed their victims, known as “trophy videos.”

After the assassination, the stance of war leaders followed a long-standing pattern.

After taking el-Fasher, RSF chief General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemedti”, announced that he would be open to a ceasefire. He wanted to burnish a reputation tarnished by mass killing.

But stung by battlefield humiliation, Sudan’s generals were unwilling to budge.

The head of the armed forces, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, leader of the UN-recognized government, rejected a ceasefire and vowed to continue fighting.

Burhan – and especially the Islamists within his camp – are now in a combative mood, describing the RSF as a terrorist mob that must be completely defeated.

Hemedti publicly offers a compromise. But the atrocities of their troops tell a different story, and few people in the cities they have sacked will contemplate living under their rule.

When they have just suffered a defeat, army commanders constantly vow to avenge their losses and regain their pride. And when they win, they insist they can finish the job.

During 40 years of wars in South Sudan, Darfur and elsewhere, this mentality has meant that Sudan’s leaders are dismissive of peace formulas offered by mediators.

Now that the country faces de facto partition, this is the pattern Trump needs to break.

Regional states support different sides in the war.

Egypt and Türkiye have increased their arms supplies to the Sudanese army. Saudi Arabia is also leaning towards the military.

Multiple reports from investigative journalists and intelligence agencies show that the UAE has been arming the RSF and is reportedly increasing its supplies. The United Arab Emirates has always denied this.

The first step towards peace is for key regional states to stop fanning the flames and instead use their influence for peace.

For six months, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Senior Africa Advisor Massad Boulos have been crafting a plan.

They established the “Quad” (United States plus Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) and drafted a plan with three key elements:

• a ceasefire
• access to humanitarian aid
• negotiations to establish a civilian-led government.

The Quad affirmed its plan in September and met again in Washington last month. But it could not close the gap between the Sudanese warring parties, and so the RSF attacked el-Fasher.

At first glance, Bin Salman’s appeal to Trump gives the Quad plan much more weight.

The American president is the only figure who could intervene with the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and persuade him to change course.

The problem is that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are locked in a fierce rivalry for influence across the Arab world, including countries like Yemen and Syria, as well as Sudan.

It is a competition for who will be the main power in the Arabian Peninsula.

The two also have political differences, especially over how to handle the Muslim Brotherhood: Saudi Arabia can tolerate Islamists as long as they do not play a leading role, while the United Arab Emirates considers them a terrorist organization.

Because Burhan’s coalition includes Islamists, who were powerful and wealthy during former President Omar al-Bashir’s 30-year rule from 1989 to 2019, the United Arab Emirates has taken sides against him.

Trump would also need to get Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to put Sudan higher on their list of priorities.

For both countries, Sudan is below issues such as Gaza and Syria, as well as finance and trade.

Despite his personal appeal to the US president, it is unclear whether Bin Salman offered to put aside his differences with the Emirati leader to achieve peace in Sudan.

And Burhan seems to interpret the prince’s intervention in Washington as nullifying the Quad plan, not reinforcing it, since it could mean excluding the United Arab Emirates.

He wants to see a bigger role for Saudi Arabia in the mediation, and for the UAE to be excluded from it, which is a green light to escalate the war, not end it.

To be truly effective, Trump would need to put enormous pressure on the UAE to end its alleged support for the RSF.

But with larger issues at stake — the UAE is a supporter of the Abraham Accords and a major investment partner — the Trump White House is unlikely to take sides against Abu Dhabi over the war in Sudan.

He has not made a single public rebuke to the United Arab Emirates and the prospect of actions – used in other conflicts – such as economic sanctions is nil.

For now, the United States is relying on quiet diplomacy to persuade the Emiratis to use their influence over their Sudanese protégés. That requires diplomatic finesse.

The long-suffering people of Sudan hope that the Trump White House has the skill and patience to achieve peace.

Even if the Quad achieves a ceasefire, it will be just the beginning.

With aid budgets cut to a minimum, it will be difficult to find the urgently needed $3 billion in humanitarian aid. Without a massively stepped up relief effort, any truce will be fragile.

And that is just the beginning of a long and difficult road to peace in Sudan.

The Sudanese are polarized and bitter, and most of them do not trust any of the generals.

Civilians who took to the streets to overthrow Bashir seven years ago continue to demand democracy and justice.

And many fear that if Arab countries lead the peace process, Sudan’s destiny will be to become an Arab dependency.

Alex de Waal is executive director of the World Peace Foundation at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in the US.