Why is the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) refusing [or at least not agreeing to] attend the peace talks?

Question

According to the US State Department presser of Aug 8:

one of the parties, the RSF, has agreed to attend. The SAF has not yet agreed to attend. The Secretary [=Blinken] spoke to General Burhan several days ago and impressed upon him the importance of attending those talks and the importance of reaching a ceasefire, as well as the importance of not hindering access to humanitarian assistance that the Sudanese people need. And we will continue to impress that there – on all of the parties that there is – there can be no military victory to this war.

Also, the SAF doesn't seem to be doing well in the field, e.g. with the RSF siege of el-Fasher. The UN Security Council is apparently almostly unanimously of the same [14-0] opinion (as quoted by Al-Jazeera, which also mentions that Russia abstained) in that it:

called on the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and military [=SAF] “to seek an immediate cessation of hostilities, leading to a sustainable resolution to the conflict, through dialogue”.

So, one might think the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) would be inclined to negotiate. Have they said why they're not attending the peace talks that the US (& almost the entire Security Council) is prodding them to?

Answer 1

Ostensibly, because they are unwilling to accept any peace agreement that leaves territory they consider to be theirs under what they consider to be occupation.

Several sources imply this, but this source is the most explicit as to potential motivation:

The SAF refused to attend the meeting as long as the RSF occupies Sudanese cities and villages, dashing hopes for a cease-fire deal. Sudanese military leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan reiterated this position on Wednesday, hours before the scheduled talks.

“Military operations will not cease until the last militia withdraws from the cities and villages they have violated and colonized,” Burhan said in a statement.

Taking SAF's leader's statement at face value, they have established their precondition to commit to a ceasefire negotiation. Reading between the lines, use of the verb 'colonized' implies Burhan reads the current military situation in a particular light that invokes concepts of justice and sanctity of territory - concepts that are difficult to abandon for the sake of peace.

I say 'ostensibly' because negotiations during armed conflict is never cut-and-dry.

It is entirely possible SAF and RSF are currently negotiating. Leaders, especially those whose positions depend on support from one or more factions, often say things publicly that run directly counter to their actions or statements in private. Negotiations for peace often happen in total secrecy, while both sides zealously pursue military objectives against each other.

Admitting to participating in negotiations can be a morale-killer. Consider the case of a small nation that has been invaded by a foreign aggressor, lost much territory, and is very close to total collapse of its military. Informing the public that you are negotiating an end to hostilities - one certain to require that your country cede territory thousands have died to retain - could be the very thing that causes your military to crumble and you lose everything as a consequence.

Negotiation between international actors, and especially belligerents, is often a delicate thing. Often the talks are fruitless, but in the spirit of 'you never know until you ask,' talks still happen. Nobody wants to be in a shooting war.

Burhan's statements, in this more nuanced view, could simply be a signal to RSF and the sponsors of the talks that the political situation within SAF will not permit open negotiation, and so if RSF and the sponsors want that they're going to have to give Burhan something he can point to that allows him to attend without losing face. Burhan knows the RSF and rest of world are watching him make those statements. Thus, public statements like that are a form of diplomatic communication.

Answer 2

In an interesting move (perhaps), instead of going to those negotiations, instead the SAF opened their territory [well, somewhat] to the Western press. Both the WSJ and PBS were able to report from inside the country for the first time in years. (Of course, one might expect the visits to have been at rather 'managed' by the SAF.)

Anyhow, part of this interesting PR move, Sudan's VP Agar gave an interview to PBS. According the piece, Agar is a hardliner who sees the complete destruction of the RSF as the only way forward. So, it seem his faction is in ascendancy now, which in part explains their refusal to talk to the RSF anymore. He went on how the RSF is "a tool for UAE and others" etc. Agar also claimed that negotiating with Hemedti is useless, as Hemedti is (allegedly) not the one in control of the RSF.

PBS also asked Agar about his visit to Moscow. He's reply was blunt that he went there for weapons. Likewise when asked about the weapons deal with Iran, Agar said that if the US doesn't like it, they should sell him weapons.

One other thing that Agar took offense at is that the US special envoy for Sudan didn't go to Sudan. There was a dispute over the protocol, with the US side reportedly refusing to go any further than the airport and Burhan refusing to meet them there.

While this doesn't give a lot of details on their motives, it's perhaps coupled with the reported sudden resolve of Burhan himself to not negotiate with the RSF anymore, after the [alleged] assassination attempt against him, at then end of July.

Al-Burhan himself stated that he won't go to Geneva but instead will "fight for 100 years" if that's what it takes to defeat the RSF, adding "We will not co-exist with rebels and we will not forgive them".

(The US envoy in turn accused the SAF leaders of prolonging the war in order to avoid a return to democracy.)