Sudan: Has the U.S. Adopted a Regime Change Policy in Sudan?
Monrovia — There has been a flurry of diplomatic activity this week surrounding peace efforts in Sudan as world leaders gather in New York for the 81st session of the UN General Assembly. The conflict, which began in April 2023, has reached a stalemate, leaving the country virtually divided between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
A committee of Sudanese doctors earlier warned that conditions in the country have reached “catastrophic” levels, particularly in conflict-affected areas including the capital, Khartoum. The group, the Preparatory Committee of the Sudanese Doctors’ Syndicate, presented its report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. It documented extensive damage to health facilities and environmental destruction that the group warned is fueling the spread of disease.
The committee’s report comes after UN agencies warned they may be forced to cut back on humanitarian aid due to severe funding shortfalls. Sudan is currently home to the world’s worst hunger and displacement crisis: according to the UN, nearly 8.6 million people remain internally displaced, and more than 19 million face crisis levels of food insecurity.
In response, the U.S. intensified its diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the violence. The American approach – spearheaded by U.S. President Donald Trump’s Senior Advisor for Arab and African Affairs, Massad Boulos – focuses on applying diplomatic pressure on both the SAF and RSF to secure a ceasefire, establish humanitarian corridors, and enforce targeted sanctions against key perpetrators of violence.
As part of these efforts, the Trump administration proposed an immediate 90-day humanitarian truce in July to allow aid deliveries, strengthen civilian protection, and pave the way for negotiations on a permanent ceasefire, followed by a civilian-led political transition and elections. Although early reports suggested the warring factions had accepted the proposal, an op-ed by Sudanese Sovereignty Council Chief and Army Commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan appears to contradict those claims.
Writing in Foreign Policy magazine under the title “How to Bring Peace to Sudan,” Burhan argued that external efforts to secure a ceasefire over the years have failed to yield results, stressing that the latest U.S. proposal merely buys the RSF time. He argued that any genuine peace process must be an internally driven settlement leading to a permanent ceasefire, the consolidation of all armed groups under a single national army, and a national political dialogue culminating in a new constitution and elections. He added that the Rapid Support Forces do not hold legitimate state authority.
On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Boulos announced on social media that he had held “productive conversations” with the SAF-appointed Foreign Minister, Mohi El Din Salem, and Egyptian Foreign Minister Dr. Badr Abdelatty. Boulos said the discussions centered on the urgent need to “agree on a path to durable peace in Sudan,” adding that the Sudanese people critically need a humanitarian truce that can “lead towards an inclusive civilian dialogue and a peaceful, unified Sudan.”
His statement follows reports that the U.S. denied a visa to Army Chief Burhan, preventing him from attending the UN gathering. Observers view the move as an attempt to pressure him into accepting the proposed ceasefire. U.S. officials reportedly made Burhan’s attendance contingent on his agreement to the 90-day truce proposed by Boulos. While neither the U.S. State Department nor the Sudanese government has officially commented on the reported visa denial, according to al-Jazeera, some Sudanese citizens took to social media to voice opposition to the U.S. stance, arguing that UN participation should not be conditioned on Khartoum’s acceptance of the proposal.
Meanwhile, in a statement released Tuesday, September 22, the U.S. State Department reiterated President Trump’s commitment to ending the conflict, stating that accepting the truce is an “essential step to achieving a durable peace” in Sudan. It emphasized that the administration stands ready to work with anyone who is a “serious partner” for peace.
“Neither the Sudanese Armed Forces, the Rapid Support Forces, nor their respective leaders represent legitimate, constitutional governance for Sudan – they rule through force of arms alone,” the State Department added, saying the conduct of both leaders “renders them ineligible to govern the country.”
Cameron Hudson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has said the State Department’s statement essentially signals a policy of regime change in Sudan.
“There is no other way to read the statement,” Hudson wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter), arguing that the U.S. has painted itself into a corner. “First with its chemical weapons sanctions, then its arms embargo, then with its visa ban. Now, in order to justify the ban, it has doubled down on its regime of maximum pressure.”
Hudson said the current U.S. approach leaves little room for negotiation: “Either Burhan bends his knee and signs whatever is put in front of him unconditionally, or the situation remains as is.”
