Sudan’s war-torn leadership has dealt a severe blow to international peacemaking efforts by sharply rejecting a U.S.-backed ceasefire and transition proposal. General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and de facto sovereign leader, described the plan as “the worst yet,” accusing the mediators of bias and warning that its terms undermine Sudan’s sovereignty.
At the core of Burhan’s opposition is a strong objection to what he perceives as a plan that would effectively dismantle Sudan’s conventional military and security institutions. According to his public statement, the proposal would “eliminate the armed forces,” dissolve existing security agencies, and yet leave the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in control of their territories. He contends that such restructuring would weaken the SAF fundamentally while granting formal legitimacy to the RSF, a group he views as existentially antagonistic to the state.
General Burhan also attacked the role of the mediators in framing the agreement. The proposal was put forward by a bloc known as the “Quad,” which includes the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. He singled out U.S. adviser Massad Boulos, alleging that he was seeking to “impose conditions” on Sudan and warned that Boulos himself might become an obstacle to peace. Moreover, Burhan accused the Quad of partiality, particularly because of the UAE’s involvement. He claimed that the UAE has supported the RSF, further eroding the credibility of the mediation.
On the other side, the RSF has already expressed willingness to accept the proposal. The paramilitary group stated that it welcomes the three-month humanitarian truce offered and supports the broader political roadmap crafted by the “Quad.” But for Burhan and his military allies, any pause in the conflict is conditional. He has insisted that the RSF must fully withdraw from civilian areas before serious political negotiations can proceed.
The rejection has stirred fresh doubts about the feasibility of a negotiated end to the war. Sudan erupted into violent conflict in April 2023, when tensions between the military and RSF boiled over — a clash that has since claimed tens of thousands of lives, displaced millions, and triggered one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
Burhan, however, framed his resistance not as a rejection of peace itself, but as a defense of sovereignty. “We are not warmongers, and we do not reject peace,” he said — yet he bristled at what he described as external actors dictating the fundamental architecture of Sudan’s post-conflict security.
His hardline stance raises serious questions: Can external mediators present a settlement that the SAF deems fair without undermining its institutional power? And if not, how realistic is a durable peace in Sudan — especially if one side views the very premise of international mediation as a threat to its existence?
