How a humanitarian truce in Sudan could pave the path to just peace and a revived civil society

Marking the third complete year of war in Sudan, an international conference took place in Berlin in April this year that followed earlier, inconclusive convenings.

This year, the meeting underscored a familiar reality: the international community can spotlight Sudan’s crisis, but that cannot substitute for practical steps to reduce civilian harm and create space for a credible political process.

In a statement, conference co-hosts – Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, the African Union, and the European Union – urged joint efforts to end Sudan’s war, address the humanitarian crisis and include Sudanese voices in political solutions.

The final statement also acknowledged the role of the Quad – one of the mediator groups, comprised of the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – in ceasefire efforts.

However, despite a humanitarian truce being the foundation of the Quad’s roadmap to peace and a key demand of Sudanese civil society, the statement dismissed it as fundamental to securing humanitarian access.

While it is true that humanitarian access should be protected as a matter of principle and not be conditional, sidelining the need for a time-bound, monitored and structured truce risks leaving civilians trapped between legal, theoretical commitments on paper and violence on the ground.

A humanitarian truce can serve as the practical bridge between humanitarian imperatives and a political track.

What set the 2026 Berlin meeting apart from those in Paris in 2025 and London in 2024 was the visible participation of members of Sudanese civil society advocating for peace.

They engaged not only in the formal sessions but also in preparatory meetings and side events, signalling a widening civilian accord pushing for outcomes and not just statements.

In the days leading up to the Berlin meeting, a wave of diverse civil society groups mobilized to advocate for the end of the war. These included the Democratic Civil Society Platform, the Sudan Civic Convergence Tracks, the “Barridouha – Cool it Down” campaign, the Sudanese Group for Refugee Advocacy, and the Sudanese Women’s Groups and Leaders.

The different campaigns and advocacy messages are part of a growing repertoire of civil resistance actions aimed at spotlighting the war’s devastating impact on civilians, pressing for an end to hostilities and urging regional and international actors to prioritize Sudan in peace efforts.

In particular, the Democratic Civil Society Platform stands out for its structured, policy-oriented vision. Its advocacy centres on clear, pragmatic demands encapsulated in the “Life First” campaign.

The argument is simple: establish a credible humanitarian truce anchored in a political process with meaningful civilian participation, while restoring essential services such as health and education and safeguarding agricultural cycles and local economies.

A humanitarian truce is not only a logistical pause in fighting; it is life-centred protection designed to preserve the social and economic foundations required for enduring peace.

This momentum is not limited to traditional peace advocacy. It also extends into sectoral initiatives that, while seemingly technical, are politically consequential. A striking example is the National Initiative to Save the Future of Sudanese Certificate Students, launched in mid-March.

Emerging from what organizers described as a defining moment in Sudanese education, the initiative seeks to address the plight of approximately 280,000 students, many in Darfur and Kordofan, who have been unable to sit for secondary school examinations for three consecutive years due to the war.

The initiative’s statement declares that girls make up about 65% of those affected, making the crisis as much about gendered exclusion as it is about systemic collapse.

By framing education as “the last anchor” of national unity, the initiative warns that denying a generation access to schooling risks perpetuating the very grievances that fuel conflict.

Sudan’s expanding civil society movement seeks to end widespread violence, protect civilians and revive a democratic transition consistent with the aims of the Sudan December Revolution – the popular uprising that led to the removal of President Omar al-Bashir and the end of his 30-year rule.

Since the current war began, civil actors have operated in an increasingly militarized environment shaped by remnants of the previous regime and violent networks of war profiteers – conditions that restrict their work, shrink civic space and make peaceful community engagement harder.

A humanitarian truce, supported by credible coordination, monitoring and clear obligations, would create practical space for civil society and pro-peace movements to operate.

It would make it safer to organize, communicate and represent affected communities; it would also help stabilize conditions for humanitarian delivery and the restoration of basic services.

Sudanese civil society has already shown its ability to mobilize around rights and protection in an increasingly militarized context; a truce would allow that capacity to contribute more directly to de-escalation and to a viable peace process.

Pro-peace campaigns could help rebalance the “correlation of forces” within Sudan and beyond, amplifying constituencies that favour peace negotiation while constraining those that oppose it.

In practice, similar dynamics are beginning to emerge. For instance, campaigns such as the initiative on secondary school examinations have already gained acknowledgement from both sides of the conflict and opened space for negotiation.

This shows that civil resistance can, under certain conditions, push the parties to make concessions by shifting the moral and political terrain.

Eventually, the humanitarian truce would grant the space needed for pro-peace civil society to be effective. This includes influencing public opinion, marginalizing those opposing their efforts, and empowering citizens to demand inclusion in decisions about Sudan’s future.

Despite major obstacles, Sudanese civil society has shown creativity and resilience at local, national and international levels. By acting, they have built stronger connections, enabled communities, fostered collaboration and creativity, and confronted misleading stories about the conflict.

The potential for these efforts to contribute to peace depends on their ability to scale up, coordinate across platforms and bridge the gap between elite-driven advocacy and grassroots engagement, so that calls for peace translate into tangible local benefits.

The path forward is demanding but practical. Elite advocacy remains vital for engaging international actors and shaping policy debates; at the same time, deeper community engagement is required to sustain legitimacy and pressure.

Strengthening grassroots networks and organizing around everyday needs such as safety, services, livelihoods and education can make peace efforts relevant to daily life. Only by bridging these divides can civil society generate enough leverage to influence belligerents and underpin a credible peace process.

The Berlin conference is over but Sudanese civil society’s message remains clear: peace will not arrive on its own or at a “ripe” moment – it must be built persistently and collectively.

International partners should back Sudanese civilian initiatives such as Life First and the National Initiative to Save the Future of Sudanese Certificate Students, and prioritize a credible, monitored humanitarian truce as a first, life-saving step that can widen civic space and make an inclusive political process possible.