Sudan Peace Talks Derail as Egypt-UAE Rift Boils Over Behind Closed Doors

Postponed Quartet Meeting Exposes Sharp Divide Over Future of Warring Forces in Khartoum

A crucial ministerial meeting meant to jumpstart Sudan’s long-stalled peace process has been abruptly called off after a bitter dispute erupted between Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, according to diplomats familiar with the talks. The spat, which played out quietly in Washington’s diplomatic backrooms, has now cast serious doubt over the feasibility of any near-term negotiations.

The cancelled meeting was part of the so-called Sudan Quartet — the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt — who’ve all staked strategic interests in the ongoing war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). But the UAE’s last-minute push to exclude both factions from any future transitional process collided head-on with Egypt’s insistence on preserving Sudan’s core institutions, especially its army.

And just like that, what was meant to be a rare moment of alignment collapsed — before the press even got wind of a formal joint statement.

A Meeting That Never Was

The gathering, scheduled for this week in Washington, had been months in the making. Multiple sources told AFP that U.S. officials had already circulated a draft joint statement, a fairly standard post-meeting formality. The wording, according to those close to the matter, was carefully calibrated and previously agreed upon — or so it seemed.

But the UAE, in a surprise eleventh-hour move, proposed removing the army and RSF from any transitional process that would follow a ceasefire. Cairo balked.

One Arab diplomat said bluntly, “The UAE’s change was totally unacceptable.” That single clause, inserted into an otherwise uncontroversial draft, ignited a standoff that neither side was willing to walk back.

“The meeting was supposed to set the tone for a post-conflict road map,” said another source. “Instead, it became a casualty of regional rivalry.”

Why Egypt and the UAE Are Butting Heads Over Sudan

It’s not the first time Cairo and Abu Dhabi have quietly jostled for influence in Africa’s third-largest country. Both have deep historical ties and security stakes in Sudan — but they back different visions.

Egypt has long aligned itself with Sudan’s regular army, viewing it as a stabilizing force and ideological ally. For Cairo, dismantling the army would mean erasing Sudan’s state apparatus — a red line.

The UAE, meanwhile, has taken a more transactional approach. Officials in Abu Dhabi see the RSF, led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (a.k.a. Hemedti), as a tool to contain Islamist resurgence and secure trade corridors to the Red Sea. Their recent diplomacy reflects that bet.

This week’s draft joint statement, in effect, became a battlefield for those clashing agendas.

Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher for Sudan’s Civilian Population

Beyond the geopolitical maneuvering, ordinary Sudanese are the ones most affected. The war, which began in April 2023, has killed over 150,000 people and displaced more than 9 million — that’s roughly 20% of the population. According to the UN, Sudan is now home to the world’s largest hunger crisis.

The collapse of the Washington meeting means delays — and potentially more death. Civil society groups and displaced community leaders had pinned cautious hopes on this Quartet meeting as a signal that the world still cared.

Here’s where things stand:

• Sudan’s military controls most of the eastern region, including Port Sudan.

• The RSF holds Khartoum and swathes of Darfur.

• Millions have fled across borders into Chad, South Sudan and Egypt.

The breakdown in talks makes the humanitarian response even harder to coordinate. Diplomats say that aid delivery has become near-impossible without assurances from both the army and RSF commanders — the very actors now deemed unacceptable by the UAE’s proposed peace plan.

How the U.S. and Saudis Tried — and Failed — to Keep the Peace

Interestingly, both Washington and Riyadh had tried to play the role of referee. American diplomats reportedly believed they had achieved consensus — until the UAE’s revision derailed the draft.

Saudi officials, who share economic and security interests with both Cairo and Abu Dhabi, attempted to mediate. But sources say Riyadh chose not to pressure either party too forcefully, wary of damaging its own fragile regional alignments.

A U.S. State Department source described the mood in the room as “increasingly tense” by Monday night.

What Comes Next? More Delay, More Chaos

With no joint statement, no rescheduled date, and no agreed path forward, observers worry Sudan could slip further down the priority list of global diplomacy. And the longer the conflict drags on, the more difficult it becomes to reassemble a functioning civilian state.

At the heart of the stalemate is a simple question no one wants to answer aloud:
What does a post-war Sudan actually look like, and who gets to be in charge?

Some in Washington still hope for a hybrid model that incorporates neutral technocrats backed by external monitors. But without buy-in from Egypt or the UAE, such a model is a fantasy on paper.

Snapshot: What the Postponed Statement Would Have Covered

Here’s a look at what the original draft — before the edits — was expected to outline:

Even minor language tweaks in such documents carry major symbolic weight, especially in a region where alliances shift quickly and trust is thin.

Cairo’s Red Line and the Bigger Picture

For Egypt, the Sudanese army isn’t just an institution — it’s an extension of its own security doctrine. Allowing its exclusion from a future political framework would be, in Cairo’s view, equivalent to empowering chaos. And chaos on its southern border is simply not an option.