US policy in Sudan: Crisis management or conflict resolution?
Yasir Arman
Sudanese people place great hopes in an effective role by the U.S. administration in ending the war in Sudan, given its ability to influence many of the actors involved in the conflict and their regional backers, as well as previous U.S. administrations’ efforts to help end wars in Sudan.
The primary responsibility for stopping and ending the war certainly lies with the Sudanese themselves, who must own both their future and the process of ending the conflict. However, it is well known that most of the weapons killing Sudanese civilians today are not manufactured inside Sudan – especially smart weapons, programmed systems, and drones. It is also evident that the war in Sudan is tied to geopolitics, foreign interests, expansionist ambitions, resource plundering, and regional spheres of influence.
The U.S. President’s Special Envoy for African Affairs frequently comments on issues related to the war in Sudan, which has helped keep the Sudanese crisis in the international spotlight. Yet anyone observing U.S. policy toward the war in Sudan – the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe today – must ask a fundamental question: Is the U.S. government working to manage the catastrophe in Sudan, or to solve it?
It is clear that, for the U.S. government, the Sudanese catastrophe is currently being approached through crisis management and dealing with its consequences: regulating the pace of destruction, addressing immediate emergencies, limiting the expansion of war crimes and civilian killings, striving to deliver humanitarian aid, and preserving, at a minimum, the role of international organizations and the United Nations in humanitarian operations. All of this appears aimed more at stabilizing the conditions of war than at ending it.
The U.S. administration has continued to promote familiar humanitarian protocols and emergency responses, alongside recurring press conferences, maintaining attention on humanitarian issues, and imposing sanctions on certain influential figures from the warring parties. These measures themselves have become routine and predictable, accompanied by messages to the parties involved that contain occasional threats and standard condemnations from time to time – a “day-by-day crisis management policy” – without a clear plan to end the war or a genuine use of U.S. influence.
Perhaps Sudan is not a priority on the U.S. administration’s crowded agenda, which is occupied with Iran, Ukraine, Gaza, and Venezuela – all of which rank ahead of Sudan’s catastrophe in American priorities. African affairs in general are largely absent from the top priorities of U.S. policy, and Sudan is approached within the framework of crisis management rather than resolution.
The Sudanese war has regional and international repercussions, and these implications continue to escalate. The agenda of ending the war in Sudan has surfaced prominently on several occasions, including during Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s recent visit to Washington.
The anti-war forces and friends of peace and democracy in Sudan need deep dialogue to advance the agenda of ending the war regionally and internationally, particularly within the United States. This requires studying the intersections of regional and international interests, as well as examining the experiences of Sudanese activists in advancing demands for peace and democracy within the United States over the past four decades, while recognizing changing realities and defending the interests of the Sudanese people and their right to just peace, democracy, citizenship, development, and the important role of Sudanese communities and their allies in the United States.
Our world today is undergoing profound transformations. War has become televised, and the displacement and targeting of millions of civilians has become a familiar image in the media. Today’s conflicts and wars are connected to struggles over geography and interests in unprecedented ways.
At the same time, the internal nature and causes rooted in national realities and issues of state-building remain decisive factors. The roots of the wars in our country must be addressed without overlooking the significance and impact of external actors.