African union visits sudan with no military leverage to stop the war

A delegation from the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) commenced a two-day field visit to Sudan on Sunday, aiming to advance a ceasefire, improve humanitarian access, and revive a political settlement to a conflict that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions over three years. The visit occurs against a backdrop of shifting military dynamics, where the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have recaptured much of the capital, Khartoum, while the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) maintain a stronghold across large areas of Darfur in western Sudan. Despite the SAF's gains around the capital altering the military balance, neither faction has achieved a decisive victory, leaving both believing they can still improve their battlefield positions. The PSC's immediate priorities are interlinked: compelling the SAF and RSF toward a ceasefire, facilitating humanitarian aid delivery, and preserving a framework for a political transition that determines Sudan's future beyond the two armed groups. The RSF remains a potent military force controlling significant parts of Darfur and retaining the capacity to fight elsewhere, with the contested Kordofan region potentially affecting supply routes between SAF-held areas and western Sudan, as well as the RSF's ability to move fighters and equipment.

The diplomatic efforts are built upon previous AU initiatives. In May 2023, the PSC adopted a roadmap calling for a permanent and inclusive ceasefire, humanitarian access, civilian protection, and a return to a credible political transition. That same month, the SAF and RSF signed commitments in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, regarding civilian protection, a short-term ceasefire, and humanitarian arrangements. More recently, in October 2024, the PSC undertook another field mission to Cairo and Port Sudan, pressing for similar objectives. However, the fundamental challenge remains the AU's limited leverage. Analysts point out that the AU lacks an enforcement mechanism, financial leverage, and a standby military force to pressure the main warring parties. The organization's task is to convert its political legitimacy into sufficient pressure to make negotiations more attractive to the SAF and RSF than launching another offensive. Security analyst Kabir Amadu from Nigeria's Beacon Consulting Limited argues that the Sudan war has produced exhaustion rather than a resolution, with both sides receiving enough internal and external support to continue fighting but not enough to secure a decisive victory.

The battlefield reality directly undermines diplomatic efforts. The SAF's recapture of parts of Khartoum has shifted the military balance, but the RSF's entrenchment in Darfur and its ability to contest other regions means the war is far from over. Control over Kordofan is strategically vital, as it could sever or secure supply routes linking different parts of the country, directly influencing each side's operational capabilities. This military stalemate, characterized by mutual exhaustion but continued capacity for violence, creates a situation where neither party feels compelled to make genuine concessions at the negotiating table. The AU's current visit is acknowledged as a step in the right direction, but a two-day mission is insufficient to resolve the deep-seated problems driving the conflict. The core diplomatic challenge is that both the SAF and RSF still perceive potential gains from continued fighting, making the AU's offer of a political process less appealing than the prospect of a military breakthrough.

The consequences of this diplomatic impasse are severe for Sudan's civilian population. The war has already caused tens of thousands of deaths and displaced millions, creating a massive humanitarian crisis. The AU's inability to enforce a ceasefire or ensure humanitarian access means that aid delivery remains obstructed, and civilian protection is largely absent. The political process intended to determine Sudan's future beyond the rule of the two armed groups is stalled, leaving the country in a state of prolonged instability. The international community's fragmented response, with various external actors providing support to different sides, further complicates the AU's mediation efforts. Without a unified international approach and meaningful leverage, the AU's field visits and diplomatic engagements risk becoming symbolic gestures rather than effective interventions, prolonging the suffering of the Sudanese people and delaying any prospect of a sustainable peace.