Sudan’s army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has renewed his call for a Sudanese-led political settlement to end the country’s war, repackaging an internal dialogue initiative that has already been rejected by several major civilian and political forces, as well as the Sudan Founding Alliance (TASIS).
Writing in Foreign Policy, Burhan argued that any lasting settlement must be made by Sudanese and based on national sovereignty, the rule of law and an internal political dialogue.
His proposal largely echoes the “Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue” he has promoted in recent months, a process that has drawn sustained opposition from groups that question whether talks organised under authorities controlled by one of the warring sides can produce a credible settlement.
Burhan said more than a dozen internationally sponsored ceasefire efforts had failed to bring a lasting end to the war, which is now in its fourth year.
He rejected describing the conflict as a civil war between two equivalent sides and portrayed the Rapid Support Forces as an armed challenge to the Sudanese state. He also accused the RSF of relying on foreign backing and foreign fighters and urged international actors not to grant it political legitimacy.
Burhan said he had presented a plan to the UN Security Council providing for a permanent ceasefire followed by a transition towards civilian-inclusive government.
The proposal includes removing fighters and weapons from civilian areas, placing security arrangements under UN supervision and eventually establishing a single national army under civilian oversight.
Burhan also called for a Sudanese political dialogue to determine the shape of a settlement, draft a constitution and prepare for internationally supervised elections.
But the internal dialogue at the centre of his proposal has already encountered broad opposition.
The Sumoud civil alliance, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, rejected the process in August, arguing that holding political talks in territory controlled by the army while the war continued risked institutionalising Sudan’s existing divisions. The alliance said a credible political process should follow efforts to secure a ceasefire and address the humanitarian emergency.
A wider gathering of Sudanese anti-war political and civil forces meeting in Addis Ababa on August 22 and 23 also rejected Burhan’s initiative, saying they would neither participate in the dialogue nor recognise its outcomes.
The meeting brought together forces linked to the Sudanese Declaration of Principles, the Popular Congress Party, National Umma Party figures, civil society organisations, women’s and youth networks, academics and independent figures. Participants instead proposed parallel humanitarian, ceasefire and civilian political tracks.
TASIS has also repeatedly rejected a political process organised under Burhan’s authority.
In an official statement in May, the alliance said a dialogue proposed by the army leadership would lack credibility and argued that negotiations conducted under military dominance could not provide a genuine solution to Sudan’s political crisis. TASIS said any credible process should address what it described as structural problems within the Sudanese state and lead to a new constitutional order.
The alliance later criticised African Union backing for Burhan’s internal dialogue, arguing that the process could not be considered independent because the army chief had initiated it and because TASIS and other major actors were being excluded.
TASIS has maintained that a viable political process should begin with moves to halt the war and address the humanitarian crisis before moving towards a genuinely inclusive national dialogue.
Senior TASIS figure Hasab al-Nabi Mahmoud reiterated that opposition this month, saying Burhan’s proposed dialogue did not engage what he regarded as Sudan’s democratic political forces or sufficiently represent the wider population.
The Sudanese Communist Party has also rejected the initiative. In a September 16 statement, the party described the Burhan-backed process as incapable of producing genuine peace while military operations continued and accused the Port Sudan authorities of using political initiatives to seek legitimacy and consolidate their political camp.
The opposition is not universal. The dialogue’s preparatory committee has said a number of political and community forces responded positively to its outreach, while some army-aligned groups have supported an internal process.
Burhan nevertheless urged the international community to support his proposal before the Security Council, help stop weapons and financing reaching the RSF, support UN monitoring of any ceasefire and leave Sudanese political actors to determine the country’s future.
Khalid Omar Youssef, a senior Sumoud figure, sharply criticised Burhan’s latest appeal.
Youssef questioned Burhan’s invocation of atrocities committed in Darfur, pointing to the army chief’s own service in the region during earlier conflicts and accusing him of maintaining alliances with figures associated with Sudan’s former regime.
He argued that Burhan’s article suggested the army chief’s priority was preserving his political position rather than ending the conflict.
Youssef called for an end to military rule, saying the current war should mark the end of Sudan’s long history of governments in which political authority has been imposed through armed force.
Burhan’s latest intervention therefore comes not as the unveiling of an entirely new political initiative, but as another push for an internal dialogue whose structure, participants and credibility have become a major point of contention among Sudan’s rival political forces.
