Sudan is trapped in the world's worst displacement crisis, with 14 million people forced from their homes since April 2023. Most international peace efforts have completely flattened out, rejected by one side or the other as biased or unrealistic. But a new Sudan peace proposal, leaked from within the country's transitional government, tries a radically different angle.
Malik Agar Ayyir, a former rebel leader who used to fight against the central government in Khartoum, is now the deputy chairman of Sudan's Transitional Sovereignty Council. He just put forward a detailed blueprint aimed at fixing the broken political machinery of the state. Instead of trying to force the regular army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) into an immediate, fragile marriage, Agar is looking at what happens to the rest of the country first.
His strategy focuses heavily on creating a unified front among the factions already aligned with the internationally recognized government. It is a calculated gamble. By building an internal consensus before tackling the warring generals, he wants to redraw the map of Sudanese politics.
Flipping the script on armed militias
The core of Agar's proposal relies on a single, uncompromising principle. The state must regain its total monopoly on weapons. For decades, various regimes in Khartoum survived by outsourcing security to tribal militias, regional rebels, and paramilitary groups like the RSF. That system tore the country apart.
Agar is calling for the systematic dissolution of all non-state armed groups. It is an ironic stance for a man who spent years leading his own armed militia in the Blue Nile region. Yet, his background gives him unique leverage. He knows exactly how these groups operate because he ran one. He understands that a country with multiple sovereign armies is not a country at all; it is a time bomb.
The roadmap builds on the foundations of the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement, which originally sought to integrate regional rebel groups into the national system. By reviving those principles, Agar hopes to convince other former insurgent groups that their best bet for survival lies within a structured, civilian-led democratic state rather than fighting as independent warlords.
The elephant in the room
You cannot talk about peace in Sudan without addressing the outside cash and weapons keeping the engines of war running. Agar's proposal explicitly highlights the destructive role of external actors.
For years, Sudanese government officials have pointed fingers directly at regional powers, most notably the United Arab Emirates, accusing them of fueling the RSF's war machine. This document does not shy away from that tension. It argues that internal stability is impossible unless regional meddling is brought out into the light and halted.
Previous international initiatives stumbled exactly here. Look at the "Quad" initiative involving the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE late last year. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) immediately shot it down. They claimed the involvement of the UAE made the entire framework biased toward the RSF. By demanding that external interference be dealt with openly, Agar is trying to clear the board of foreign agendas.
Shifting the negotiation tracks
What makes this Sudan peace proposal genuinely fascinating is how it handles the RSF. It does not invite them to the table. At least, not to this table.
Agar has spent months ruling out direct negotiations with the paramilitary group. His new proposal treats internal government alignment and the ongoing conflict with the RSF as two completely separate tracks.
- Track One: Build an unshakeable civilian and military consensus among government-aligned factions. This means hammering out disputes over how the regular army operates, how the country should be governed during the transition, and how to eventually hold free elections.
- Track Two: Deal with the military conflict against the RSF separately, treating them as an insurgent force rather than an equal political partner.
This is a direct response to failed initiatives like the 2025 UN Security Council submission, which demanded the RSF withdraw from western and central Sudan before any talks could begin. The RSF laughed that plan out of the room. Agar's approach acknowledges that reality. He wants to consolidate the government's political power first, making it strong enough to negotiate from a position of absolute clarity.
Moving past the gridlock
Many civilian groups are terrified that the current war will permanently entrench military rule. They want a "third pole" of politics that strips power away from anyone holding a gun. We saw this with the Nairobi roadmap late last year, which tried to push a purely civilian-led agenda.
Agar's plan tries to bridge that gap. It offers a structured transition toward a civilian government while keeping the regular army central to national security. He is trying to convince the skeptical public that the army can be a stabilizing force if all other armed factions are dismantled.
It is a messy, high-stakes plan filled with immense political hurdles. But with millions facing starvation and no end to the fighting in sight, a proposal coming from someone who has occupied both sides of the trenches—as both a rebel fighter and a state official—demands attention.
The next crucial step requires the transitional government to formally convene the regional and factional leaders aligned with it. They must prove they can actually agree on a shared vision for governance before they can ever hope to stabilize the rest of Sudan.
