Sudan: Diplomatic Setbacks Undermine U.S. Approach to Sudan
The U.S. has faced significant diplomatic failures in Sudan, including a failed UN arms embargo expansion and a counterproductive attempt to pressure General al-Burhan, undermining its peace efforts.
Intelligence analysis by Gemini 2.5 Flash
Washington's recent diplomatic efforts in Sudan have been largely unsuccessful, marked by a failed attempt to expand a UN arms embargo and a misstep in denying General al-Burhan a visa. These actions, perceived as punitive and poorly conceived, have alienated allies and exposed a lack of strategic footing, benefiting those the U.S. seeks to pressure and hindering peace prospects.
Imagine two big groups are fighting in Sudan, and the U.S. wants them to stop. But the U.S. tried to make them stop in ways that didn't work, like trying to ban weapons for everyone when one side was winning, or telling a leader he couldn't come to a big meeting. These actions just made things worse and upset the U.S.'s friends who were also trying to help, making it harder to find a real solution. It's like trying to make two kids share a toy by taking it away from one who just found it, and then confusing everyone about who's in charge.
Analysis
The article critically examines the recent failures of U.S. diplomacy in Sudan, highlighting a series of missteps that have undermined Washington's influence and credibility. These setbacks are attributed to a disconnect between U.S. policy objectives and the realities on the ground, particularly the Sudanese army's recent tactical victories against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The U.S. push for a ceasefire, for instance, is deemed premature given the army's strengthened position, which aims to reunify the country. This strategic miscalculation has led to a perception that U.S. efforts are counterproductive, ultimately benefiting the very factions Washington seeks to pressure.
General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan
A significant diplomatic blunder involved the U.S. attempt to pressure General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the Sudanese military commander, by withholding his visa for the UN General Assembly. This move was intended to force him into a ceasefire agreement but was widely perceived as punitive and counterproductive, even by Washington's own diplomatic partners. The administration's surprise at this reaction underscored its inexperience and naiveté in handling complex diplomatic relations.
Further inconsistency emerged in the U.S. stance on al-Burhan's legitimacy. While the State Department declared that neither al-Burhan nor Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo represented legitimate governance, a senior U.S. advisor later attended a luncheon alongside al-Burhan, who was referred to by his official title, "Chairman of Sudan's Transitional Sovereignty Council." This rhetorical whiplash and willingness to let such an encounter pass as diplomatic progress signaled a lack of clear strategic direction.
The Quad
The U.S.'s diplomatic missteps have also strained its relationships within the Quad, a diplomatic grouping formed to broker peace in Sudan, comprising the United States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The decision to deny al-Burhan a visa drew criticism from these partners, particularly Saudi Arabia, which publicly expressed its disapproval. This backlash called into question the value and purpose of the Quad itself, delivering a significant blow to the U.S. approach.
The article suggests that if the U.S. cannot lead effectively at the Security Council or maintain consensus among its closest partners, it reflects the unintended consequences of an "America First" foreign policy. This breakdown in international consensus on how to address the Sudanese conflict ultimately benefits the warring parties and harms those most in need of assistance. The U.S. needs to rebuild trust with Khartoum's supporters to prevent them from developing independent approaches.
Massad Boulos
Massad Boulos, the president's senior adviser for Africa and Arab affairs, played a central role in the inconsistent messaging that characterized U.S. diplomacy. On September 15, Boulos publicly stated there was "no future" for either al-Burhan or Dagalo in Sudan. However, just weeks later, he posted about his "pleasure" in attending a luncheon with President Sisi "alongside General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan," using the very title Washington had previously refused to recognize.
This public contradiction, coupled with the quiet abandonment of the administration's earlier demand for a 90-day truce, highlighted a significant struggle within Washington to find its strategic footing. Boulos's post, which made no mention of the truce demand, instead offered a vague call for a "Sudanese-owned and Sudanese-led national dialogue," a message al-Burhan seemingly interpreted as an endorsement to reject negotiations with the RSF and vow to "liberate every inch of the homeland."
Key points
- The U.S. has experienced significant diplomatic setbacks in Sudan, including a failed UN arms embargo expansion.
- An attempt to pressure General al-Burhan by denying him a visa was counterproductive and drew criticism from allies.
- Inconsistent U.S. messaging regarding al-Burhan's legitimacy and the peace process has undermined its credibility.
- These failures have strained relations within the Quad diplomatic grouping and exposed weaknesses in U.S. foreign policy.
- The article suggests the U.S. needs to change course, rebuild trust with regional partners, and adopt a more coherent strategy.
The article suggests it's "not too late to change direction." If U.S. officials undertake a "listening tour" to rebuild trust with regional partners like Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha, they could foster a more unified and effective international approach to Sudan. This could lead to a coherent strategy that genuinely supports a Sudanese-owned and Sudanese-led national dialogue, potentially paving the way for a more stable peace process.
The current U.S. diplomatic failures risk further alienating key regional allies and emboldening the Sudanese army, potentially prolonging the conflict and increasing suffering. If Washington continues its inconsistent messaging and poorly conceived policies, its partners may develop their own approaches that conflict with U.S. goals or exclude the U.S. entirely, leading to a fragmented international response and a worsening humanitarian crisis.
