Here is the rewritten article in markdown format:

Conflict of Interest Policies in Sudan: A Crisis of Epic Proportions

Sudan is on the brink of its worst crisis in history, with devastating humanitarian tolls and the risk of state failure. The conflict has escalated, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the Rapid Support Forces in a fight for control of the entire country.

The Epicenter of Conflict

The epicenter of the bloodshed is Khartoum, but the warring parties are also mobilizing support in peripheral regions, including Darfur. This has reignited dormant ethnic conflicts, resulting in crimes reminiscent of the early 2000s genocide. An estimated 4 million people have been internally displaced, while over a million more have fled to neighboring countries.

International Mediation Efforts

In response to the crisis, external mediation efforts have multiplied. Sudan’s seven immediate neighbors and three across the Red Sea are all invested in the outcome of the conflict. European policymakers should prioritize unifying Sudan’s fragmented mediation process and urge the Biden administration to make this a key policy point.

Excluded from Mediation Efforts

The US and Saudi Arabia convened talks between the RSF and SAF in Jeddah, but this exclusive platform excluded other international mediators and civilian leadership, creating space for alternative forums to emerge. The IGAD organization joined the fray, but lacks membership from critical regional players Chad and Egypt, which bear the heaviest spillover from Sudan’s conflict.

Alternative Initiatives Emerge

Chad and Egypt responded by establishing their own initiative, the neighboring countries’ summit, which included all regional heads of state. The African Union has launched its own initiative, focusing on civilians, but its lower profile is due to the involvement of other forums.

Challenges in Unifying Mediation Efforts

The United Nations anticipated potential exclusion from mediation by emphasizing the importance of inclusivity, with a proposed “extended mechanism” that includes 25 states and IGAD. However, this lack of willingness to participate from key states hinders real influence.

Sudan’s Political Culture

Sudan’s political culture encourages the proliferation of mediations through “forum-shopping,” where elites harness external mediation as a means of creating political capital. Each negotiator seeks to build their own external initiative, diluting mediator influence and resulting in uncoordinated proposals.

Generating Influence on Warring Parties

The urgent task is generating sufficient influence on warring parties to create political will. The Sudanese analyst Amgad Fareid proposes clarifying the division of labor between multiple forums: Jeddah for military and security aspects, Egypt and Chad for humanitarian issues, and the AU and IGAD for civilian democratic vision.

European Diplomacy’s Role

European diplomats should stop being agnostic about Jeddah’s platform and instead promote a change in US position by discussing unifying Sudan’s mediation process with the White House. The EU and its member states must get off the fence to ensure an effective international response.

Conclusion

Typically, political Darwinism accomplishes survival of the strongest in mediation forums where officialdom fails. However, this is not the case in Sudan today, as too many people are dying to let time accomplish what diplomacy fails to achieve, and powerful actors like the US and Saudi Arabia are creating obstacles rather than becoming linchpins to a unified international response.