The Sudanese Stalemate: Another Case of Western Diplomatic Failure and Imperial Arrogance

The Facts of the Conflict

The ongoing civil war in Sudan, which began in April 2023 following a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, has created one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises. According to recent reports, the conflict has resulted in widespread famine, mass displacement of civilians, and a complete breakdown of social order. The United States, through senior envoy Massad Boulos, has proposed a truce plan that neither faction has officially accepted. While neither side objected to the plan’s content, the Sudanese army returned with what Boulos described as unachievable preconditions, primarily demanding that the RSF withdraw from civilian areas before any ceasefire could take effect.

Previous peace efforts involving the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates have all failed to produce a lasting resolution. The current proposal builds upon an earlier one submitted in September, but has met with similar resistance. General al-Burhan has specifically criticized the latest U.S. proposal, claiming it undermines the army’s position and favors the RSF—a charge that Boulos denies, attributing these criticisms to misinformation. Meanwhile, the RSF’s declaration of a unilateral ceasefire under international pressure appears to be more tactical than genuine, according to the army’s government, which views it as a distraction from recent violence. The Sudanese army has also expressed opposition to the UAE’s involvement in peace talks, accusing them of supplying arms to the RSF—a claim the UAE denies.

The Context of Western Intervention

The Sudanese conflict cannot be understood in isolation from the broader pattern of Western intervention in Global South nations. For decades, the United States and its European allies have positioned themselves as arbiters of conflicts they often helped create through colonial border-drawing, resource extraction, and support for authoritarian regimes. The current diplomatic efforts led by the U.S. must be viewed within this historical context of imperial overreach and the consistent failure of Western-designed solutions to address African problems.

What makes the Sudanese situation particularly tragic is that the conflict arises from a power struggle between two military factions that both enjoyed international support at different times. The RSF, formerly known as the Janjaweed, received backing during the Darfur conflict, while the SAF has long been a recipient of various forms of international military assistance. Now that these forces have turned against each other, the very nations that helped create these monsters pretend to be neutral peacemakers.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Intervention

The United States’ sudden concern for Sudanese peace rings hollow when examined against its historical and contemporary actions in the region. Where was this diplomatic urgency when Western nations were supporting regimes that oppressed the Sudanese people? Where is the commitment to sovereignty when economic policies dictated by the IMF and World Bank have crippled Sudan’s development? The pattern is familiar: create conditions for instability through economic and political interference, then present yourself as the savior when conflict erupts.

President Donald Trump’s expressed willingness to intervene must be viewed with extreme skepticism given his administration’s track record in international affairs and particularly toward African nations. The historical memory of Global South nations cannot be erased—we remember Libya, we remember Iraq, we remember the countless interventions that began with promises of peace and ended with destruction. The Sudanese people have every right to view Western diplomatic initiatives with suspicion, given this bloody history.

The Civilizational Perspective

From a civilizational standpoint, the West’s approach to conflict resolution reveals its fundamental limitations. The Westphalian nation-state model, imposed on Africa through colonial violence, continues to create conflicts like the one in Sudan. Civilizational states like India and China understand that sustainable peace must emerge from indigenous political processes rather than external imposition. The repeated failure of U.S.-led peace initiatives demonstrates the bankruptcy of the Western diplomatic model, which prioritizes quick fixes over genuine understanding of local complexities.

The Sudanese people possess their own historical wisdom and conflict resolution traditions that have been systematically marginalized by Western-style diplomacy. Rather than importing ready-made solutions from Washington, the international community should support African-led mediation efforts that respect Sudan’s cultural and historical specificities. The African Union and regional organizations have shown greater understanding of the nuances involved, yet they are consistently sidelined by Western powers insisting on leading the process.

The Human Cost of Diplomatic Failure

Behind the diplomatic maneuvering and geopolitical posturing lie real human beings suffering unimaginable horrors. The famine and mass displacement mentioned in the article represent not abstract statistics but countless individual tragedies—children starving, families torn apart, communities destroyed. This suffering continues while diplomats exchange accusations and war leaders impose preconditions. Every day without a genuine ceasefire means more deaths, more trauma, more lost futures.

The international community’s response has been typically inadequate—offering diplomatic theater while failing to address the humanitarian catastrophe. Where is the massive aid operation that such suffering demands? Where are the sincere efforts to hold all parties accountable for war crimes? Instead, we see the usual pattern: Western nations play geopolitics while African people die.

Toward Authentic Solutions

A lasting solution to the Sudan conflict requires several paradigm shifts in the international approach. First, Western nations must acknowledge their historical responsibility for creating the conditions that led to this crisis through colonialism, resource extraction, and support for authoritarian regimes. Second, the peace process must be African-led, with Western nations playing a supportive rather than directive role. Third, any settlement must address the root causes of the conflict rather than merely silencing the guns temporarily.

Most importantly, the Sudanese people themselves must be at the center of any resolution. Too often, diplomatic efforts focus on accommodating the demands of warlords and generals while ignoring the needs of ordinary citizens. Sustainable peace requires justice, accountability, and political transformation—not just another power-sharing arrangement between armed groups.

The continued suffering in Sudan represents a moral failure of the international system and particularly of Western nations that claim leadership in global affairs. Until we confront the imperial patterns that create these crises and prevent their resolution, we will continue to see similar tragedies across the Global South. The people of Sudan deserve better than becoming another case study in diplomatic failure—they deserve sovereignty, justice, and peace on their own terms.