As attention turns to the upcoming third Berlin conference on Sudan, widely seen as a key international effort to advance peace, coordinated political and media campaigns have emerged seeking to undermine the event and diminish its significance.
The conference, scheduled for April 15 in Berlin, is not a routine diplomatic meeting but a broad international initiative led by Germany, bringing together the European Union, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, the African Union, Canada, and more than 25 foreign ministers from countries influential in Sudan’s peace process.
Conference priorities
According to diplomats involved, the Berlin conference will focus on two main tracks: ending the war through coordinated international and regional efforts, and expanding the humanitarian response with participation from UN agencies and international organizations.
It will also include a civilian track led by the “quintet mechanism” — comprising the United Nations, African Union, IGAD, the Arab League, and the European Union — with around 40 Sudanese participants representing a broad spectrum of civil and political forces, including women and youth.
The aim is to produce a Sudanese-led call for a ceasefire and launch a political process rooted in national ownership.
These elements, observers say, underscore the conference as a serious and rare opportunity to end the conflict — a factor that helps explain the intensity of the backlash against it.
Dissecting the boycott narrative
Calls to boycott the conference have circulated across platforms linked to Sudan’s Islamist movement, which analysts say opposes peace efforts and advocates for continuing the war, alongside political actors aligned with authorities based in Port Sudan.
Political analysts describe the messaging behind these campaigns as selective and misleading.
Youth activist Amjad Abdelkader said the narrative of “international bias” used to justify the boycott is unfounded, noting that the conference brings together a broad and balanced coalition of Western, African, and Arab actors.
Civil society voices have also pushed back against claims that the conference lacks civilian representation, pointing to the inclusion of diverse Sudanese actors. They argue that such criticism deliberately ignores these facts to delegitimise the process.
Who is behind the campaigns?
Sudanese political sources say the campaigns are not spontaneous, but part of a broader strategy led by actors linked to the country’s Islamist movement, which they say continues to wield influence within the Port Sudan-based authorities.
The same networks, they add, previously opposed peace initiatives in Paris and London, as well as negotiation tracks in Jeddah, Manama, and Geneva. They have also criticised the ongoing “quad mechanism” — involving the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt — which many Sudanese political and civilian groups consider among the most serious diplomatic efforts to date.
Observers say the goal of these campaigns is to derail any political process that could threaten the continuation of the war, prevent the formation of a unified civilian front, and weaken international pressure to end the conflict.
A battle between war and peace
Political analyst Abdelaziz Mansour described the situation as more than a disagreement over a conference, calling it a clear struggle between two paths: one toward peace backed by international and regional actors, and another aimed at prolonging the war to serve narrow political interests.
Speaking to Sky News Arabia, Mansour said the Berlin conference could be one of the most important efforts to halt the war, citing both its scale of international participation and its integration of political and humanitarian tracks.
He added that Sudanese participants are being given a central role in shaping the country’s future, and that the organised attacks against the conference reflect fears among some actors that it may succeed.
A decisive test
Against this backdrop, the Berlin conference appears to represent a critical test of both international and Sudanese political will to end the war.
Between disinformation campaigns and renewed diplomatic momentum, the stakes are clear: seize a rare opportunity to end the conflict, or remain trapped in a cycle of war whose costs continue to be borne by Sudan’s civilian population.
