As the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly drew to a close in New York on September 27, 2025, the world’s attention turned to Sudan—a nation wracked by over two years of violent conflict and now facing what UN agencies describe as the globe’s most severe humanitarian crisis. The urgency in the assembly’s halls was palpable, with diplomats and leaders grappling with the question: Can international resolve and mediation finally bring peace to Sudan?
Since April 2023, Sudan has been caught in a deadly struggle between rival military and paramilitary commanders. The initial gunfire in Khartoum quickly spread to Darfur and beyond, leaving devastation in its wake. According to the Associated Press, at least 40,000 people have died, nearly 13 million have been displaced, and over 24 million currently face acute food insecurity. The numbers alone are staggering, but they only hint at the suffering endured by ordinary Sudanese.
For the first time since the conflict erupted, Sudan’s most influential external backers—the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates—have come together to chart a path toward peace. This so-called “Quad” issued a joint statement on September 12, calling for a three-month humanitarian truce to deliver desperately needed aid, followed by a permanent ceasefire. Their proposal also includes a nine-month inclusive transition designed to establish a civilian-led government with broad legitimacy. On September 24, Quad members convened at the UN assembly to hammer out the details and discuss how to turn their roadmap into reality.
But the Quad is hardly acting alone. The African Union, European Union, and foreign ministers from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have joined the push, meeting with the Quad and a dozen other countries, as well as organizations like the Arab League and IGAD, to pressure Sudan’s warring parties back to the negotiating table. In a joint statement, these actors urged both Sudan’s government and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to resume direct negotiations for a lasting ceasefire, while condemning the involvement of unnamed foreign nations and non-state actors that continue to fuel the violence.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres did not mince words, demanding an end to external support that "fuels this bloodshed" and calling for the protection of civilians. "In Sudan, civilians are being slaughtered, starved, and silenced. Women and girls face unspeakable violence," Guterres declared, painting a grim picture of daily life in conflict zones.
The International Criminal Court’s deputy prosecutor has gone further, accusing the RSF of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, where the group now controls nearly all regional capitals. In June, the RSF and its allies established a parallel government—a move swiftly rejected by the UN Security Council as a threat to Sudan’s territorial integrity. Sudan’s transitional Prime Minister, Kamil El-Tayeb Idris, has accused the RSF of "systematic killing and torture and looting and rape and humiliation and the savage destruction of all the components of life" in their campaign to seize power and plunder the nation’s resources. Idris insists the civilian government will pursue a national dialogue with all political and social forces, aiming for free elections and ongoing engagement with regional and international partners.
The human toll is not confined to Sudan’s borders. Chad, Sudan’s western neighbor, now hosts over two million Sudanese refugees, with 1.5 million arriving since April 2023 alone. Chad’s Prime Minister, Allah Maye Halina, addressed the assembly, emphasizing that "the current crisis in Sudan cannot be resolved through weapons, but rather through peaceful means, through inclusive inter-Sudanese dialogue." He stressed Chad’s neutrality and readiness to support peace initiatives, a sentiment echoed by many regional leaders.
Yet the roots of Sudan’s conflict run deeper than the current battle lines. As Daniel J Deng, an East Africa and South Sudan peace-building specialist, recently argued in an analysis for the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the war is not simply a fight for military dominance—it is, at its core, a "war of visions" over Sudan’s future. Deng sees the RSF, led by Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti), as both a product of the collapse of centralized governance and a potential catalyst for a more inclusive, decentralized national reconstruction—the so-called "New Sudan."
This vision, Deng contends, draws inspiration from the late John Garang, a rebel leader who dreamed of a pluralistic, federal, and inclusive Sudan. Garang’s vision, central to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, imagined a nation "anchored in inclusive governance, ethnic equality, and political secularism," transcending old regional divides. After Garang’s death, the Islamist-dominated Bashir regime allowed this vision to fade, eventually leading to South Sudan’s secession in 2011. Today, Hemedti’s rhetoric and his coalition, Tasis, echo Garang’s ideals—at least on the surface. Hemedti has called for "an end to discrimination, equal citizenship, and the rights of all Sudanese, regardless of region or ethnicity," and in April 2023, just as the conflict was about to escalate, he declared, "We want a Sudan that belongs to all Sudanese, not just a select group… a Sudan where every citizen, from Darfur to Kassala, is treated with dignity and equality."
Hemedti’s alliances with groups like the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) suggest a genuine interest in decentralized governance that reflects Sudan’s ethnic diversity. Yet, Deng cautions, the RSF’s actions on the ground have also drawn sharp criticism and accusations of atrocities. Meanwhile, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) continue to champion a "traditional centralist, military-Islamist dominated model of government." After the 2021 coup that ousted civilian Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, Burhan "sought to reintroduce Islamist figures into state structures, consolidating SAF’s traditional base and reactivating elements of the National Congress Party’s old guard," Deng writes. This approach, he warns, "reinforces a statist governance model misaligned with Sudan’s emerging decentralized realities."
The failures of past peace efforts—like the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement, which Deng says "institutionalized parallel sovereignties" rather than unifying the country—serve as stark reminders of the dangers of top-down, elite-centric solutions. "By replacing institutional pluralism with top-down military rule, the post-2019 transition drifted into warlord competition masked as governance," Deng concludes. The way forward, he argues, is not a return to the old order, but a new model rooted in accountable, civilian-led, grassroots governance.
Amid these competing visions, the role of outside mediators has never been more critical. Dr. Majed bin Mohammed Al Ansari, Advisor to the Prime Minister and Official Spokesperson for Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, participated in a high-level panel at the Global Citizen Now Summit during the UN General Assembly, reaffirming Qatar’s "deep commitment to mediation in regional and international conflicts despite growing challenges and attempts to disrupt its role." Since the mid-1990s, Qatar has played an active part in peace efforts from Lebanon and Yemen to Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iran. Even after a recent Israeli attack on a residential neighborhood in Doha—a move Al Ansari called an "unprecedented and unacceptable escalation"—Qatar continues its mediation efforts, helping broker talks in Colombia and working to reunify families in Ukraine. As Al Ansari put it, "Qatar does not claim to possess all the solutions, but it provides the platform that enables the parties to come together and choose the path to peace."
As Sudan’s future hangs in the balance, the world’s peacemakers face a daunting challenge: moving beyond easy binaries and elite bargains to support a truly inclusive, accountable, and decentralized Sudanese state. The stakes—measured in lives, livelihoods, and the hope for a peaceful future—could not be higher.