On 15 April, for the third year in a row, African, Arab and Western countries gathered in a European capital to discuss ending the war in Sudan. For the second year in a row, the gathering instead displayed the outside divisions helping tear Sudan apart.
Like in London last year, the officials who gathered at the Sudan conference in Berlin on 15 April failed to agree on a joint communiqué, leaving the co-hosts to release a separate statement instead.
While Germany deserves credit for hosting the conference, where €1.5 billion in humanitarian pledges were announced, the blame for its shortcomings lies within the U.S.-led Quad group, which has taken the lead on peacemaking diplomacy. Comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates alongside the U.S., the Quad represents the countries with greatest influence over Sudan’s two warring parties, the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Egypt and Saudi Arabia back the army, which they view as Sudan’s state authority, while the Emirates are widely understood (despite Emirati denials) to back the RSF.
In September 2025, the Quad agreed on a roadmap toward peace, starting with a humanitarian truce. But what seemed a possible breakthrough has yielded mainly disappointment.
The Berlin conference highlighted that the group is too at odds to even agree on a new statement about the war. Over seven hours of negotiations, delegates debated proposed changes to the draft communiqué. In the end, negotiations foundered over Saudi Arabia’s insistence on language stressing the need to preserve “state institutions”, which would include Sudan’s army, and the UAE’s opposition to it. A similar debate among Arab governments derailed discussions last year in London. Last-minute efforts by U.S. Senior Advisor Massad Boulos to broker a Saudi-Emirati compromise failed.
In side discussions, delegates expressed near despair. The intra-Quad discord highlights the challenges facing U.S.-led efforts to secure a truce, which are backsliding amid souring relations between Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The two squared off in Yemen in December, when Abu Dhabi-backed forces launched an offensive near Saudi borders, leading Riyadh to attack those forces, and their broader dispute continues to play out in Sudan. This dynamic frustrates struggling efforts to set the roadmap in motion. The high-level diplomacy needed to narrow differences over Sudan’s thorny endgame is meanwhile absent. With U.S. diplomacy unreliable, there is glaring need for other countries to backstop its efforts, but little indication that others will step up.
One bright spot came from a nearby building, where Sudanese civil and political representatives (including some aligned with Sudan’s army) agreed on a joint call to end the war after a marathon day of intense and emotional negotiations. While the belligerents themselves do not appear close to peace talks, some hope the new declaration could help kickstart dialogue among Sudanese about a post-conflict settlement. At the least, it showed that those committed to Sudan’s greater good can still achieve compromise – a marked contrast to the outside powers who keep tragically failing to do the same.
