Washington’s latest diplomatic effort to halt the Sudanese civil war has ignited a heated debate among Sudan’s own leaders. The United States, under the Trump administration, put forward a 90‑day ceasefire proposal that would pause fighting between the army‑led authorities and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and open the door to negotiations aimed at resuming a transition to civilian governance.

Sudanese officials warn of a potential partition

Amjad Farid, a senior adviser to army commander General Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan, told Reuters from New York that the plan appears to pressure Sudan’s army to accept a “de facto partitioning of the country similar to the Libyan model.” Farid argued that the proposal seems to accommodate the RSF’s continued existence and preserve a role for the militia in Sudan’s political future.

Farid said the army‑led government had already submitted its own amendments to the deal, including a request for an internationally monitored withdrawal of RSF forces from urban areas. He claimed the United States had ignored those changes, further fueling fears that the ceasefire could cement a split between the army‑controlled east and the RSF‑influenced west.

US rationale and diplomatic context

The Trump administration’s senior advisor for Arab and African affairs, Massad Boulos, designed the ceasefire to create a breathing space for humanitarian aid and to bring both sides back to the negotiating table. The plan reflects Washington’s broader strategy of using diplomatic pressure to encourage a unified, constitutional government in Sudan, rather than allowing rival militias to entrench separate power bases.

U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that neither the RSF nor the Sudanese armed forces represent legitimate, constitutional governance. By proposing a temporary halt to hostilities, the administration hopes to prevent further civilian casualties and to set the stage for a political settlement that respects Sudan’s sovereignty and the rule of law.

Regional implications and historical parallels

Analysts have long warned that the Sudan conflict could evolve into a de facto division reminiscent of Libya, which has been split between rival eastern and western administrations for more than a decade. Since last year, the RSF has attempted to establish a parallel government in Nyala, western Darfur, appointing ministers and activating a limited police presence, though it has not yet provided essential public services.

Recent battlefield setbacks have left the RSF silent on the U.S. proposal, while its leader has reiterated that RSF fighters intend to continue the war until their political demands are met.

Diplomatic setbacks and next steps

The ceasefire talks faced an immediate obstacle when General Burhan’s visa to attend the United Nations General Assembly was withheld after he failed to accept the proposal. A Sudanese delegation that had been preparing to meet Boulos in Washington was forced to cancel the meeting, according to two unnamed Sudanese diplomats.

The State Department has not yet commented on the visa decision. However, the administration’s public statements continue to emphasize the need for a unified, constitutional government and the importance of preventing further humanitarian disaster.

What this means for Sudanese families

For ordinary Sudanese families, a ceasefire could mean a temporary reprieve from the daily threat of gunfire, displacement, and loss of livelihood. If the United States can help steer both sides toward a genuine political settlement, it may preserve the nation’s unity and protect the future of children and parents across the country.

Nevertheless, Sudan’s army advisers remain wary that the plan could legitimize the RSF’s role in the political arena, potentially entrenching a divided governance structure that would jeopardize long‑term stability.

Looking ahead

The coming weeks will test whether Washington’s diplomatic push can bridge the deep mistrust between Sudan’s armed factions. Success would bolster the Trump administration’s foreign‑policy record of pursuing peace through firm but fair negotiation, while failure could deepen the crisis and risk a permanent split of the nation.

Original reporting: Appleton, WI News Feed (HLL/CB) — read the source article.