Sudan's New Civilian Roadmap: A Path to Peace or a Diplomatic Distraction?
A new civilian-led political roadmap to end Sudan's war was announced in Nairobi, but it faces skepticism from domestic critics and international partners like the EU, who question its legitimacy and strategy.
A coalition of Sudanese civilian leaders has unveiled a new political roadmap in Nairobi, positioning itself as a “third pole” to end the country’s devastating war. But the initiative is already facing sharp questions about its legitimacy at home and its strategy abroad, with key international partners expressing skepticism.
On December 16, Sudanese political parties, armed movements, and civil society organizations signed a nine-point declaration in Kenya. Their stated goal: to forge an anti-war, pro-peace platform that reclaims political agency from the two military factions tearing the country apart—the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The declaration brought together prominent figures, including former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, who led a transitional government before a 2021 coup, and, notably, Abdelwahid al-Nur, a longtime holdout from past political settlements. His participation was seen by some as a potential breakthrough.
Echoing the International Playbook
The Nairobi roadmap emerged months after a key statement from the Quad—the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt. In September, the Quad called for a truce, humanitarian access, and a political process for a civilian transition, all points mirrored in the new declaration.
Cracks in the Foundation
Despite the high-profile signatories, the initiative has been criticized for failing to represent a broader cross-section of Sudanese society. Sudanese researcher Hamid Khalafallah told Al Jazeera the coalition falls short.
"It’s in many ways a reproduction of former groups that have struggled to represent the Sudanese people. It’s still very much an elite group that does politics in the same way they always have."
- Hamid Khalafallah, Sudanese researcher
Crucially, the grassroots resistance committees that were instrumental in toppling former President Omar al-Bashir in 2019 have not formally endorsed the declaration. This omission reinforces concerns that civilians on the ground are being politically instrumentalized rather than empowered.
The View from Europe: 'A Distraction'
International partners, whose support is vital, appear unconvinced. A senior European Union diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, was blunt, telling Al Jazeera that Brussels does not see the Nairobi initiative as the foundation for a unified civilian process.
“We would like to see only one civilian process, that’s why we are helping the African Union [AU],” the source said. “Everything else is a distraction, like this Nairobi one.” The EU's priority, the official explained, is to consolidate civilian platforms under a single, AU-led framework rather than multiplying them.
A Question of Strategy
Analysts also question the declaration's strategic calculus. Cameron Hudson, a US-Africa policy expert, suggested the initiative appears designed more to attract international endorsement than to build genuine domestic consensus. “My sense is that the Nairobi declaration reverse engineers what the Quad has said,” he told Al Jazeera.
Hudson also warned that the approach mishandles the sequencing of Sudan’s transition by “prematurely” linking a ceasefire with complex political issues like military reform. “If what the Quad wants is an unconditional ceasefire, then it needs to pursue that, not create opportunities to trade a ceasefire for political assurances,” he argued.
PRISM Insight
The challenge in Sudan reflects a broader pattern in modern conflicts: the fragmentation of civilian political actors. International mediators often struggle to identify a single, legitimate civilian partner, leading to a crowded field of competing initiatives. This allows warring parties to exploit divisions and complicates efforts to build a coherent peace process. The EU's push for an AU-led, consolidated platform is an attempt to overcome this very obstacle, but it risks alienating groups that feel excluded from the officially sanctioned process.
This leaves international strategy tethered to an unresolved contradiction. Western powers insist that neither the SAF nor the RSF should have a political future. Yet both armed forces are indispensable to achieving any cessation of hostilities. Until this paradox is resolved, civilian-led initiatives like the Nairobi declaration will struggle to bridge the gap between political aspiration and military reality.
Related Articles
President Donald Trump has appointed Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry as a special envoy to Greenland, tasked with making the Danish territory part of the U.S., escalating geopolitical tensions in the Arctic.
U.S. and Ukrainian envoys held "productive" talks in Miami, but a major breakthrough to end the war remains out of reach amid conflicting signals from Russia and ongoing military attacks.
A new memoir by a former UK-based Confucius Institute director offers an insider's rebuttal to accusations that the centers are hubs for espionage and propaganda for Beijing.
A Kazakh woman's protest for her husband, who disappeared into China, has led to her house arrest and a crackdown on the rights group Atajurt. The case highlights Kazakhstan's difficult balance between Chinese influence and human rights.