No final agreement at London Sudan conference with Arab powers at odds
By Maha El Dahan and Nafisa Eltahir
DUBAI/CAIRO (Reuters) - A top Emirati diplomat said the Gulf state was disappointed at the failure of a London conference this week to find consensus on ending the two-year war in Sudan, as sources blamed differences between Arab states.
Both Sudan's army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces have drawn on the support of countries in the region, making them key to efforts to end the conflict, which has displaced 13 million people and spread disease and hunger among those remaining.
At a London-hosted meeting on Tuesday, however, the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia disagreed on issues surrounding Sudan's governance, four sources told Reuters.
"There was a clear call from us that we needed unity around, you know, an urgent need first and foremost that Sudan should transition to a independent civilian-led government," said Lana Nusseibeh, assistant minister for political affairs at the UAE's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
"And that's why ... we were very disappointed that despite the gravity of the situation and the UK's efforts, we were unable to agree on a joint communique yesterday."
Sudan had protested the inclusion of countries including the UAE which it has accused of supporting the RSF including this month at the International Court of Justice, accusations the UAE denies.
The summit also included Egypt, which maintains close ties to the Sudanese army, which has run Sudan since a coup in 2021, as well as Saudi Arabia, which has hosted rounds of failed peace talks.
Two Egyptian security sources said that disagreements were over the insistence by some of the presence of a civilian-led government in Sudan versus a path to end the war and leaving the issue of governance to the Sudanese to decide later on.
But one diplomat present at the talks said the disagreement stemmed from language on state institutions.
Egypt argued for language rejected by others including the UAE as it was seen as legitimising the army regime, while Saudi Arabia supported Egypt's efforts, the source added.
Saudi Arabia's government communications office and the spokesman for the Egyptian foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The open disagreement between the Arab powers ultimately doomed the communique, the diplomatic source said, and created a further roadblock for future peace efforts.
The disagreements came amid the backdrop of efforts by the RSF to install a parallel government, which it says will represent all of Sudan. Such a government, however, is unlikely to gain wide approval.
The army and RSF had ruled Sudan together since ousting civilians in 2021, before falling out in April 2023 over plans to integrate their forces.
Though the RSF quickly took over swathes of Sudan during the first half of the war, the army has in recent months regained most of central Sudan. The RSF is consolidating its control of the Darfur region in the west, including in recent days during devastating raids of the Zamzam displacement camp which have drawn widespread criticism.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules
By Dietrich Knauth and Nate Raymond (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The Federal Circuit said the litigation raised issues of "exceptional importance" warranting the court to take the rare step of having the 11-member court hear the appeal, rather than have it go before a three-judge panel first. It scheduled arguments for July 31. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Sign in to access your portfolio

Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US lawmaker McIver indicted on 3 counts for impeding law enforcement, US attorney says
By Christian Martinez (Reuters) -Democratic U.S. Representative LaMonica McIver was indicted on three counts for "forcibly impeding and interfering" with federal law enforcement, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba said on Tuesday on social media platform X. McIver, a Democrat from Newark, New Jersey, was charged in May with assault and impeding law enforcement during a scuffle that was caught on video at a privately run immigration detention center. "While people are free to express their views for or against particular policies, they must not do so in a manner that endangers law enforcement and the communities those officers serve," Habba said. In a statement posted on X on Tuesday, McIver said the "indictment is no more justified than the original charges." "The facts of this case will prove I was simply doing my job and will expose these proceedings for what they are: a brazen attempt at political intimidation." "We are eager to challenge these allegations head-on in court and fully expect the Congresswoman's exoneration," McIver's counsel Paul J. Fishman said in a statement.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's Li says US-China reach framework on trade, will report back to leaders
LONDON (Reuters) -China's Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang said on Tuesday that the Chinese and the U.S. negotiating teams had agreed a framework on trade after two days of talks, and would take that back to their leaders. "The two sides have, in principle, reached a framework for implementing the consensus reached by the two heads of state during the phone call on June 5th and the consensus reached at the Geneva meeting," Li told reporters.