The Sudanese government expressed openness to a comprehensive political settlement rather than accepting a temporary truce proposed by the U.S. [1].
This stance signals a strategic shift in how the government views international mediation. By prioritizing a root-cause resolution over a short-term ceasefire, the administration aims to avoid a cycle of temporary pauses that do not address the underlying drivers of the conflict.
Government officials said they prefer a radical political solution that extracts the roots of the crisis [1]. This approach is presented as a more sustainable alternative to the proposed U.S. truce, which the government views as an insufficient temporary measure [1].
The administration also criticized the nature of international bias and the implementation of U.S. sanctions [1]. Specifically, the government said that U.S. sanctions are problematic because they equate the national army with the Rapid Support Forces [1].
By rejecting the equivalence between the two warring factions, the government asserts its legitimacy as the state authority. This position complicates U.S. diplomatic efforts to broker a quick peace, as the Sudanese government seeks a framework that recognizes its sovereign status, and addresses the political grievances of the broader crisis [1].
“The Sudanese government expressed openness to a comprehensive political settlement rather than accepting a temporary truce.”
The Sudanese government's rejection of a temporary truce in favor of a comprehensive settlement indicates a refusal to accept a 'frozen conflict' scenario. By criticizing US sanctions that treat the army and the RSF as equal belligerents, the government is signaling that any viable peace deal must acknowledge the state's institutional legitimacy and address the systemic causes of the war rather than just the cessation of hostilities.
