The war in Sudan has entered one of its most important and dangerous phases. Although the most recent ceasefire proposal has not yet resulted in a pause in fighting, this development should not cause the international community to disengage or retreat. Instead, it underscores the depth of the crisis and the urgent need for not only continued and intensified, but also coordinated, diplomatic pressure.
The two dominant actors in the conflict -- the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces -- have previously declined to adopt or implement meaningful ceasefire arrangements. Nevertheless, as the human cost of the conflict continues to escalate, the international community cannot afford to give up on Sudan.
This is because the stakes, both within the country and across the wider region, remain too high. Sudan's trajectory not only affects its domestic political order but also the security and stability of the Horn of Africa and beyond. As a result, the international community should call for sustained engagement, while recognizing the fact that abandoning Sudan would be both a profound humanitarian catastrophe and a strategic mistake.
The scale of violence and suffering inflicted upon the Sudanese population demonstrates why the international community must engage more. The conflict has devastated cities, emptied entire communities and dismantled essential state institutions. Millions have also been displaced internally and externally, creating one of the largest displacement crises in the world. Many people have been forced to flee repeatedly as front lines shift, while many others remain trapped in areas where access to food, medicine and clean water has become increasingly restricted.
Sudan's trajectory not only affects its domestic political order but also the security and stability of the region
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
The conflict's two-and-a-half-year duration has not diminished its intensity; rather, it has generated cumulative layers of humanitarian tragedy and economic destruction. In addition, the health system has largely collapsed under the weight of the sustained violence, leaving many cities without functioning hospitals or clinics. Diseases have also been spreading rapidly in camps and besieged regions. Furthermore, schools remain closed or destroyed, depriving millions of children of education.
These multifaceted layers of devastation and humanitarian catastrophe should reinforce the need that the international community must not turn away. That would lead to an even greater disaster.
What should be done? It is imperative that the international community remains committed to pressuring both parties to return to negotiations and eventually to enter into a viable ceasefire. The process appears to be exceptionally difficult, but without any sustained diplomatic engagement there would be no path toward relief. Secondly, continued pressure can be multifaceted, encompassing political, economic and moral instruments.
In this context, the ceasefire plan advanced in September by the Quad -- comprising the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE -- remains an essential framework. The structure that the plan outlines, particularly when it comes to the phased approach beginning with a humanitarian truce, remains the best entry point for renewed negotiations. The Rapid Support Forces on Monday announced a unilateral three-month humanitarian ceasefire, before reportedly breaking it within hours.
The Quad's plan is valuable because it is a collaborative regional and international initiative, rather than a unilateral action. The plan should be reinforced, refined if needed and used as a foundation upon which additional diplomatic engagement can be built.
Furthermore, there is an urgent need to emphasize the immediate creation of humanitarian corridors to deliver aid to besieged populations.
The involvement of the African Union is also critical because it can be argued that Sudan's civil war has expanded beyond a purely domestic conflict. The humanitarian, economic and security implications have spilled across borders, affecting neighboring states and the continent at large.
The Quad's plan is valuable because it is a collaborative initiative, rather than a unilateral action
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
The African Union possesses both the institutional mandate and the legitimacy to engage deeply in the Sudanese war. It can use its weight in the diplomatic process. Furthermore, the organization has the capacity to mobilize political pressure from within the continent and coordinate with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and other subregional bodies.
Its involvement is important not only for achieving a viable ceasefire but also for charting a path toward a long-term political settlement. We should remember that Sudan's crisis is no longer Sudan's alone; it is an African crisis that requires the African Union's deep involvement, supported by the broader international community.
Finally, the international community must continue its efforts to prevent Sudan from sliding further into irreversible collapse. Continued engagement is a strategic necessity, since the fragmentation of Sudan's state structures will most likely lead to the expansion of armed groups and widespread economic devastation, threatening and destabilizing the Horn of Africa and beyond.
If Sudan's collapse continues unchecked, neighboring countries will face increased refugee inflows, heightened economic strain and greater vulnerability to cross-border conflict and organized criminal networks.
In a nutshell, when it comes to the Sudan civil war, the international community must pursue a multifaceted approach: sustained diplomatic pressure, robust humanitarian assistance and reinforced mediation efforts. Preventing Sudan's complete collapse is not only vital for humanitarian reasons but also for maintaining stability and security across the region. This is why we must not give up on Sudan and why the international community must continue with a sustained and coordinated response to the Sudan war.