US State Department: Rejects Sudan Warring Factions' Legitimacy

• The United States has declared that neither the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) nor the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) represent legitimate constitutional governance for Sudan.
• US State Department spokesman Thomas Pigott accused both `US Sudan warring factions` of intensifying combat and drone strikes, killing civilians, and failing to commit to a truce.
• The US aims to "raise the cost of continued conflict" for the warring parties and their support networks.
• Sudan's Foreign Ministry rejected the US statement, asserting the need to respect Sudan's sovereignty and national institutions, and accused `Sudan conflict external actors` of prolonging the war.
• Diplomatic tensions have impacted the Quartet, with Saudi Arabia reportedly threatening to withdraw over a US visa denial to SAF Commander Lt Gen Abdelfattah El Burhan.

This explicit rejection of the Sudanese Armed Forces legitimacy and Rapid Support Forces legitimacy by the US State Department, as articulated by Thomas Pigott Sudan statement, signals a potentially more aggressive stance designed to compel a resolution.

The United States has publicly challenged the constitutional authority of both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the primary `US Sudan warring factions`, signaling a significant shift in its diplomatic approach to the ongoing conflict. On September 22, US State Department spokesman Thomas Pigott issued a statement asserting that neither military group nor their leadership possesses `legitimate, constitutional governance for Sudan`. This declaration underscores the `US State Department Sudan legitimacy` stance, which views both sides as having failed to demonstrate serious commitment to an immediate ceasefire.

Pigott's remarks specifically accused both the `Sudanese Armed Forces` and the `Rapid Support Forces` of intensifying their combat operations and drone strikes, which have resulted in civilian casualties. Washington's position calls for these warring parties to agree to an unconditional humanitarian truce and to engage in an inclusive political dialogue aimed at establishing a civilian government. The spokesman also indicated that the United States intends to "raise the cost of continued conflict" for both the factions and any networks providing them support, suggesting potential for further punitive measures.

The US position has drawn sharp reactions, particularly from Sudan's Foreign Ministry, which on Wednesday rejected the American statement. The Sudanese ministry emphasized that any viable peace initiative must uphold Sudan's sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity, and its recognized national institutions. While expressing readiness to collaborate with the US and other international partners, the ministry explicitly stated its refusal to participate in any political process that might legitimize what it described as a situation created by the RSF. The `Sudan Foreign Ministry US rejection` also included accusations that `Sudan conflict external actors` are contributing to the war's continuation, arguing that genuine peace efforts must address these foreign interventions and illegal support sources.

Adding to the diplomatic strain, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio commented in New York on Wednesday that the Sudanese conflict would not persist without external backing. He stressed that progress hinges on these `external actors` leveraging their influence and pressure on their respective proxies to honor prior commitments. These tensions have also impacted the Quartet, a diplomatic forum comprising the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. Reports, attributed to the Africa Report, suggest Saudi Arabia has threatened to withdraw from this mechanism. This reported threat stems from Washington's alleged refusal to grant a visa to Lt Gen Abdelfattah El Burhan, Commander of the SAF and President of the Sovereignty Council, preventing his attendance at the UN General Assembly. The visa dispute reportedly centers on US pressure for El Burhan to accept a proposed 90-day ceasefire, though Saudi officials have not publicly confirmed their withdrawal threat.

The US approach has been met with critical analysis from some observers. Cameron Hudson, a Sudan analyst and former official with the US National Security Council, characterized the US statement as a declaration of "a policy of regime change in Sudan." In a recent post on X, Hudson argued that Washington has constrained its own options through a strategy of "maximum pressure," which includes sanctions, an arms embargo, and visa restrictions. He warned that this approach could leave limited avenues for a negotiated resolution to the conflict.

This explicit rejection of the `Sudanese Armed Forces legitimacy` and `Rapid Support Forces legitimacy` by the US State Department, as articulated by `Thomas Pigott Sudan statement`, signals a potentially more aggressive stance designed to compel a resolution. The stated aim to "raise the cost of continued conflict" suggests that those with interests in Sudan should anticipate potential for intensified sanctions or heightened compliance risks, as the US seeks to pressure all parties involved and their support networks.

Lawyers advising clients with Sudan interests should monitor the US's explicit rejection of the warring factions' legitimacy, as this signals potential for intensified sanctions or compliance risks aimed at 'raising the cost of conflict' for parties involved.

Source: Reporting based on recent diplomatic exchanges.