Historical Context: The Roots of Conflict
The current conflict in Sudan is not a spontaneous eruption but the culmination of decades of simmering tensions. The 2019 revolution, initially intended to establish a democratic government, was swiftly hijacked by the Sudanese military, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti). This power struggle, ostensibly over control of the country, has been fueled by pre-existing ethnic divisions, particularly between the Arab-dominated north and the Black ethnic groups in the south and west, and a longstanding competition for resources, including oil. The RSF’s origins lie in the Janjaweed militias, notorious for atrocities during the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005). This history of violence, coupled with the breakdown of governance and the presence of numerous armed militias, has created a volatile environment ripe for exploitation.
Key Stakeholders and Motivations
Several key actors contribute to the complexity of the situation. General al-Burhan seeks to maintain his grip on power, consolidating military control and suppressing any challenge to his authority. Hemedti, a businessman with significant international connections, aims to expand his influence, securing lucrative deals and consolidating his control over Sudan’s wealth, particularly its gold reserves. The United States and the European Union have long expressed concerns about human rights abuses and have imposed sanctions targeting key figures involved in the conflict. However, the effectiveness of these sanctions is hampered by the fragmented nature of the conflict and the difficulty of enforcing them. The African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) are attempting to mediate a peace agreement, but their efforts have been largely unsuccessful. “The level of disregard for international law is frankly staggering,” stated Dr. Fatima Hassan, Senior Research Fellow at the International Crisis Group, during a recent briefing. “The deliberate targeting of humanitarian corridors and medical facilities demonstrates a calculated strategy to maximize suffering.”
The Fact-Finding Mission and the Demand for Accountability
The Fact-Finding Mission, established by the International Criminal Court (ICC), has meticulously documented evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Its report, released in January 2024, names specific individuals responsible for these atrocities. The mission’s findings have generated calls for the arrest and prosecution of those named, but the practical challenges are immense. The Sudanese government has consistently refused to cooperate with the ICC, and there is no international mechanism to compel their compliance. Moreover, the security situation in Sudan remains too dangerous for investigators to operate safely. “We are witnessing a systematic dismantling of accountability mechanisms,” argues Professor David Shear, a leading expert on international law at Oxford University. “Without credible prosecutions, the incentive for future violations will only increase.” The resolution of the ICC’s extension of the mission’s mandate demonstrates the urgency of the situation.
Recent Developments and the Shifting Landscape
Over the past six months, the conflict has intensified, pushing humanitarian access to some of the most affected areas to near-zero. The RSF has gained significant territory, particularly in the Darfur region, while the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have maintained control over Khartoum and other major cities. The humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, with malnutrition rates soaring and disease outbreaks becoming increasingly common. The Jeddah Declaration, intended to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, has largely failed to achieve its objectives, due to ongoing violence and logistical challenges. Adding to the complexity is the involvement of regional actors, including Egypt and the UAE, who are providing support to the RSF. These actions are further complicating efforts to broker a peace agreement. The number of internally displaced persons has surpassed 6.4 million, highlighting the scale of displacement and the urgent need for protection and assistance.
Future Impact and Potential Outcomes
Short-term outcomes within the next six months are likely to remain characterized by continued violence, escalating humanitarian needs, and a deepening geopolitical divide. The risk of a protracted civil war, potentially engulfing neighboring countries, remains high. Long-term, the conflict could lead to the fragmentation of Sudan into warring factions, with profound implications for regional stability and security. The collapse of state institutions and the rise of extremist groups pose a significant threat. Furthermore, the erosion of international norms regarding the protection of civilians could set a dangerous precedent, emboldening other actors to engage in similar behavior. The preservation of the Sudan’s strategic significance – its location at the crossroads of Africa, the Middle East, and Europe – is increasingly at stake.
Reflection and Debate
The situation in Sudan demands a renewed commitment to multilateralism and a willingness to confront difficult choices. The international community must not allow the ongoing violence to become normalized. A fundamental question remains: can the international community – motivated by both moral imperative and strategic self-interest – effectively deliver accountability, protect civilians, and prevent a descent into prolonged chaos? Sharing perspectives and debating the complexities of this crisis is vital to shaping a responsible response.