A fierce diplomatic dispute erupted at the United Nations Security Council on Friday between the United States and Sudan over a proposed nationwide humanitarian truce. Washington openly accused Khartoum of a fresh, deliberate snub toward peace efforts, while Sudanese officials sharply fired back, claiming the American delegation had entirely ignored their formal, comprehensive response.
The public clash underscores the deepening institutional friction between Washington and Sudan’s military-led Sovereign Council, as millions of civilians continue to bear the brunt of a devastating war of attrition.
The debate opened with sharp remarks from U.S. Senior Adviser Massad Boulos, who accused the Sudanese Sovereign Council of repeatedly blocking vital peace initiatives. Boulos pointed directly to Khartoum’s alleged rejection of the latest American peace proposal earlier that morning.
According to the U.S. delegation, the text was meticulously designed to guarantee sustained, unhindered humanitarian access across shifting conflict lines and international borders. Furthermore, Boulos emphasized that the American initiative was intended to lay the structural groundwork for a permanent ceasefire and launch an inclusive political dialogue to stabilize the nation.
Sudan’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Al-Harith Idris, vehemently rejected the American narrative before the council. Countering the allegations, the Sudanese diplomat stated that the presidency had actually sent a direct, formal response regarding the initiative to Boulos before the council session had even commenced. Idris suggested that the U.S. Senior Adviser had simply failed to read the critical correspondence, clarifying that the transmitted document was not a rejection, but rather a structured counter-offer that included a revised military withdrawal schedule and a strategic framework for restoring lasting peace.
As the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces drags on, the United States used the session to accuse both warring factions of intentionally prolonging the violence at the expense of innocent lives. Despite the current diplomatic gridlock and the breakdown in direct consensus, U.S. envoys maintained that Washington will not abandon its peace operational goals. Boulos noted that the U.S. is continuing to collaborate closely with the United Nations to build an independent monitoring mechanism. This framework is intended to swiftly implement and oversee a truce the moment the warring parties eventually reverse their positions and commit to a ceasefire.
