In its waning weeks, President Joe Biden’s administration has revved up engagement on Sudan in an attempt to end, or at least pause, a devastating war that has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The next administration is unlikely to take up the cause, which is so far off the radar that no one is even speculating what Donald Trump’s incoming team might do about it. This is likely the last chance for effective U.S. action for a long time to come.

The war is a fight for control between Gen. Mohammed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, leader of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan at the helm of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). The two generals together ousted longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir in a coup in 2019 but turned on each other in April 2023 when they could not agree on how to integrate their armies.

In an unstable world facing plentiful conflict, the scale of suffering in Sudan eclipses every other today. Some 11 million people have fled their homes, and an estimated 150,000 have died. Most urgent are the credible reports of genocide and the very real risk of famine for 25 million people — half the country’s population. Extreme hunger is already killing many, as both sides in the conflict continue to obstruct humanitarian aid.

And yet this war has received far less attention than the conflicts in the Middle East and Russia’s war in Ukraine, from governments around the world or the global public. A last-ditch effort by Biden’s team is hoping to change that. It’s a welcome move after significant neglect, but it’s unlikely to shift the needle far enough to deliver peace.

U.S. officials are reportedly weighing plans to declare a genocide in an attempt to increase pressure on the warring parties and build momentum for stronger international action. Allegations of genocide have been documented since the first weeks of the war by human rights organizations and United Nations experts.

Both sides have committed atrocities, but the RSF’s offenses are believed to be far worse in both scale and nature. With a scorched-earth approach, the RSF has systematically destroyed villages, conducted mass killings and committed widespread sexual violence against the non-Arab population.

Much of the worst violence has targeted Darfur, recalling the genocide there two decades ago, committed by the RSF’s predecessor, the Janjaweed.

But what would a U.S. declaration of genocide change? When then-Secretary of State Colin Powell declared a genocide in Darfur in 2004, it was a watershed moment for U.S. attention but still failed to trigger meaningful new action by the U.S. government or its partners.

The Biden administration is also considering new sanctions on the warring parties, including Hemedti himself. But what effect would such sanctions have on a warlord who doesn’t engage with the U.S. economy? Unless the U.S. government is willing to follow the guns and money to those within America’s economic reach, such sanctions would mostly be symbolic.

Earlier this month, in what was likely his final visit to the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Antony Blinken led a meeting on Sudan where he announced an additional $200 million in humanitarian funding, condemned rampant war crimes and crimes against humanity, and called on those who were providing military support to the warring parties to stop.

Blinken fell short of naming any countries specifically, though many credible reports from independent U.N. experts and journalists have pointed a finger at the United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. defense partner. The UAE is far from the only outside actor arming the fight, but it’s probably the most consequential, as it’s believed to be the primary provider to the RSF, which now controls much of the country, including most of the capital, Khartoum.

The UAE has repeatedly denied this, saying dozens of UAE flights tracked to the region are bringing humanitarian aid, not weapons. These assurances have done little to convince some members of Congress, however. Two Democratic lawmakers threatened to block arms sales to the UAE unless the White House could certify that the UAE was not arming the rebel group, demonstrating the kind of leverage the United States has, should it choose to use it. While still not admitting complicity, the UAE has now promised the U.S. government that it is not and will not in the future arm paramilitaries in Sudan’s war.

The Biden administration promised in return to provide its assessment of the credibility of these assurances by Jan. 17, three days before the end of Biden’s term. Perhaps the UAE will comply, and the RSF, unable to fund the fight on its own, will come to the negotiating table. Or maybe the UAE will simply wait for a change in Washington leadership and return to its old ways.

Could these final efforts in the twilight of an administration pave a path to peace in the new year? For the Sudanese people, we should all hope so, but it’s likely too little, too late.

____

Elizabeth Shackelford is senior policy director at Dartmouth College’s Dickey Center for International Understanding and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

___

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.