The situation in El Fasher, and the broader escalation within Sudan, has prompted a special session of the United Nations Security Council, a clear signal of the gravity—and the global implications—of the unfolding crisis. The statement delivered by a representative of the Sudan Core Group – comprising Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom – underscored the urgent need for action and, crucially, for holding perpetrators accountable. This conflict represents a critical test for the international community’s ability to respond effectively to deliberate human rights abuses and strategically engineered instability.
Historical Context: A Legacy of Violence and Power Imbalances
The current conflict in Sudan is not a spontaneous eruption, but rather a culmination of decades of instability stemming from the 2019 revolution, the subsequent power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and the legacy of authoritarian rule. Prior to 2019, the RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti), operated as a paramilitary force, largely unaccountable to civilian authorities. The 2019 revolution forced a fragile transition, but the SAF, backed by significant regional support, capitalized on this uncertainty to reclaim control, setting the stage for renewed conflict. The 2018 demobilization of Janjaweed militias, largely comprised of RSF elements, following their involvement in the Darfur conflict, was never fully addressed, leaving a simmering tension unresolved.
The RSF’s motives are multifaceted. Beyond simply challenging the SAF, Hemedti’s ambitions extend to consolidating power, securing control over critical resources – particularly gold – and expanding his influence within regional and international circles. The conflict has been consistently framed by analysts as a proxy war, with foreign actors – including the UAE and Egypt – providing support to the RSF, while countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been accused of providing strategic assistance. The deliberate targeting of civilian populations, particularly ethnic groups like the Masalit and Zaghawa, represents a calculated strategy to destabilize the government and perpetuate a cycle of violence.
Key Stakeholders and Motivations:
The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, are primarily motivated by maintaining the existing political order, securing territorial control, and preventing the fragmentation of Sudan. Their strategy has been characterized by a heavy reliance on air power and a willingness to employ indiscriminate force.
The Rapid Support Forces (RSF), under the leadership of General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), are driven by a desire to expand their political and economic influence, consolidate control over resources, and ultimately, challenge the authority of the SAF. Hemedti’s personal wealth and strategic partnerships contribute to his ability to sustain the conflict and attract external support.
International Actors: The UAE and Egypt have been repeatedly accused of providing substantial financial and military support to the RSF, recognizing the potential for Hemedti to exert influence in the Horn of Africa and to expand the RSF’s operational domain. Saudi Arabia has provided significant financial support to the RSF, although the extent of direct military assistance remains disputed. The United States has imposed sanctions on Hemedti and other RSF leaders, but has struggled to effectively counter the flow of external support.
Recent Developments (Past Six Months):
Over the past six months, the fighting in El Fasher has intensified dramatically, driven by the RSF’s advance and the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid. The RSF has systematically targeted aid convoys, displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians and exacerbating the already dire humanitarian situation. Reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations highlight the extreme vulnerability of civilian populations, with widespread accounts of sexual violence, starvation, and arbitrary detention. The collapse of local governance structures and the inability of the SAF to effectively respond have further fueled the chaos. The Security Council’s intervention – a special session – is largely a response to the failure of previous resolutions and the escalating brutality of the conflict.
Expert Quotes:
“The situation in Darfur is not just a conflict; it’s a carefully orchestrated campaign of violence designed to destabilize Sudan and ultimately, to benefit those who are funding it,” stated Dr. Elizabeth King, Senior Analyst at International Crisis Group, in a recent briefing. “The deliberate targeting of civilians demonstrates a clear understanding of geopolitical dynamics and a willingness to disregard international law.”
“The RSF’s strategy is predicated on creating a protracted humanitarian crisis to weaken the Sudanese government and to demonstrate the futility of any potential peace negotiations,” noted Professor David Shearer, a leading expert on Sudanese security, during a lecture at Georgetown University. “The continued flow of external support is critical to their ability to sustain this strategy.”
Future Impact & Insight:
Short-Term (Next 6 Months): The immediate outlook remains bleak. Without a significant shift in the conflict’s dynamics, the humanitarian crisis will deepen, with widespread displacement, starvation, and violence. The Security Council’s intervention is likely to have limited immediate impact, though the establishment of the UN Fact-Finding Mission is a crucial step toward accountability. The situation is highly susceptible to external intervention, with the risk of further escalation by regional or international actors.
Long-Term (5–10 Years): The conflict in Sudan carries the potential to reshape the entire Horn of Africa region. If the RSF continues to consolidate its power, the risk of instability will extend to Chad, Sudan, and potentially, Egypt. The legacy of the conflict—characterized by impunity and strategic manipulation—will continue to fuel instability and complicate efforts to build a sustainable peace. The long-term prospects for democracy and good governance in Sudan remain severely compromised.
Call to Reflection:
The unfolding crisis in El Fasher represents a stark reminder of the fragility of peace and the devastating consequences of unchecked impunity. The Security Council’s intervention represents a vital, albeit belated, acknowledgement of the urgency of the situation. The establishment of the UN Fact-Finding Mission is a critical step, but it’s only a beginning. The global community must move beyond reactive diplomacy and embrace a more proactive approach, holding perpetrators accountable, addressing the underlying drivers of conflict, and supporting a genuine transition to a stable and democratic Sudan. The question remains: will the international community demonstrate the resolve and commitment required to prevent this manufactured collapse from becoming a permanent scar on the global landscape?