Can Geneva break Sudan’s spiral of collapse?

 Professor Mekki El Shibly
Executive Director, Cognisance Centre for Strategic Studies

Sudan is teetering on the edge of total collapse. Over two years into the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), governance has disintegrated. Millions are displaced, famine looms, and armed factions rule as unaccountable authorities. Khartoum, once the heart of politics and commerce, is a ghost city. Hospitals, schools, and ministries are abandoned. Port Sudan, under General Burhan, holds shaky international recognition but lacks legitimacy and reach, while the RSF in Darfur and Kordofan enriches itself through gold smuggling. Sudan is no longer merely at risk of failing; it is effectively a “zero government, zero state” scenario.

In this context, the Geneva talks between General Burhan and U.S. envoy Mosaad Bolus offer a critical opportunity. Geneva could be more than another diplomatic photo op; it could mark the start of a new approach, but only if it decisively avoids the failures of Jeddah,  London, and Washington.

Neutral Financing: A Lifeline Beyond Warlords

Sudan’s war economy fuels the conflict. The SAF diverts revenues from Port Sudan and the Red Sea corridor to military accounts. The RSF monopolises gold revenues, smuggling billions annually. Neither invests in hospitals, schools, or public services. Ordinary Sudanese face unpaid salaries, shuttered hospitals, empty classrooms, and inflation exceeding 400%.

A Geneva framework must establish a Sudan Neutral Reconstruction and Services Fund, managed by trusted international institutions like the World Bank, African Development Bank, and UNDP. This fund would bypass the warring factions to:

• Pay teachers, doctors, and civil servants.
• Provide cash transfers to vulnerable households.
• Rehabilitate water, electricity, and health infrastructure.

Funds should be performance-tied with escrow mechanisms to ensure accountability. Neutral financing can restore essential services, protect lives, and demonstrate that humanitarian outcomes need not depend on warlord approval.

Civilian Representation Without Politicisation

Neutral money saves lives; inclusive representation saves legitimacy. Past mediations focused narrowly on deals between SAF and RSF, both of which are coercive actors without a constitutional mandate. For legitimacy, national ownership, and sustainability, the talks require a credible civilian presence, not to negotiate partisan agendas, but to uphold the humanitarian, professional, and societal dimensions of peace.

This civilian representation should be drawn from national, non-partisan think tanks and centres of excellence, professional associations (including intellectuals, lawyers, doctors, and journalists), and women’s organisations with a deep community reach. Their participation ensures that the ceasefire process is informed by technical expertise, rooted in social legitimacy, and connected to the needs of civilian protection.

A Geneva Civic Track should run alongside ceasefire negotiations, feeding civilian input into transitional frameworks. Civilian oversight in monitoring and transitional mechanisms limits warlords’ capacity to hijack outcomes. Only broad participation can shift Sudan from the logic of force to the legitimacy of consent.

Regional Alignment: Breaking the Reverse Veto

A regional triangle has fueled Sudan’s war: Egypt backs SAF, UAE bankrolls RSF, and Saudi Arabia attempts to balance without decisive pressure. This “reverse veto”, where each actor blocks solutions that do not serve its interests, has perpetuated conflict.

Geneva must break this cycle through a Joint Arab–African Platform, aligning Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia with AU and IGAD mediators. Each can be offered incentives tied to Sudan’s stability:

• Egypt gains binding guarantees on Nile and border security.
• UAE secures regulated access to Sudanese gold and ports.
• Saudi Arabia anchors Red Sea security architecture in a stable Sudan.

Linking cooperation to debt relief, investment, and regional food security can turn rivalry into shared interest. Without such alignment, no roadmap can succeed. With it, Sudan has a chance.

Why Geneva Must Succeed

London and Washington failed due to short-term deals and selective engagement. Jeddah failed because civilians were sidelined. Geneva must succeed because Sudan’s collapse is now a global security threat. Terrorist networks exploit the vacuum. Smugglers move migrants across the Red Sea and Mediterranean. Nearly 13 million displaced Sudanese overwhelm neighbouring states.

The Geneva talks are a test: can the international community treat Sudan as more than a bargaining chip? Neutral financing can rebuild services. Inclusive representation can restore legitimacy. Regional alignment can break the “reverse veto”.

If Geneva reproduces old SAF–RSF bargains, Sudan will continue its descent into statelessness, exporting famine, extremism, and insecurity far beyond its borders.

Conclusion: A Last Window

Sudan is a battlefield masquerading as a state. Geneva offers a narrow but real chance to halt the spiral of collapse. The window is closing fast. The choice is stark: rescue Sudan through neutral finance, inclusive participation, and regional cooperation, or watch it become a permanent source of humanitarian and security crises for Africa, the Arab world, and beyond.