The situation in Sudan has been a complex web of internal conflict, regional instability, and external interference for decades. The roots of the current crisis can be traced back to the 1989 coup d’état led by Omar al-Bashir, which ignited a protracted civil war in Southern Sudan, largely fueled by disputes over oil wealth and ethnic tensions. The 2019 overthrow of al-Bashir, while intended to usher in a democratic transition, instead created a power vacuum exploited by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti). The ensuing fighting has engulfed Darfur, Kordofan, and parts of Khartoum, resulting in widespread displacement, civilian casualties, and allegations of war crimes. This latest escalation, according to the UN, has involved the systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure and a significant increase in the use of drones, exacerbating the conflict’s intensity.
The UK government’s renewed support for the Sudan sanctions regime, reflected in the recent statement, aligns with a growing international consensus. The government’s three core objectives—enhanced scrutiny of conflict-related sexual violence, expanded sanctions enforcement, and unwavering support for the Panel of Experts—reflect a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted challenges involved. As the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan documented, the pervasive nature of sexual and gender-based violence is not merely a by-product of the conflict; it’s a deliberate tactic employed by both sides to instill fear and maintain control. “The scale and systematic nature of the sexual violence reported requires a serious and sustained response,” stated Dr. Fatima al-Amin, a specialist in conflict resolution at the International Crisis Group. “Sanctions targeting key individuals involved in these abuses are crucial, alongside efforts to provide protection and support to survivors.”
The renewed emphasis on the Panel of Experts is equally significant. These independent bodies, tasked with investigating violations of sanctions and providing recommendations to the UN Security Council, have frequently faced obstruction from some member states. “The Panel’s work is vital to ensure accountability and to shape the scope of sanctions,” emphasized Professor David Roberts, a geopolitical analyst at the Royal College of Defense Studies. “Lack of support from key members undermines the entire framework.” Recent reports indicate the Panel is focusing on investigating the flow of arms and mercenaries into the region, tracking the involvement of foreign actors, and monitoring the activities of individuals linked to illicit financing.
Key Stakeholders:
United Kingdom: Committed to enforcing sanctions and supporting the Panel of Experts.
United States: Penholder for negotiations and a leading advocate for sanctions.
United Nations Security Council: Divided on the scope and enforcement of sanctions.
RSF (Rapid Support Forces): Accused of human rights abuses and facilitating the influx of arms.
SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces): Responsible for the initial conflict and ongoing military operations.
Regional Actors: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have been implicated in providing support to the RSF.
Recent Developments (Past 6 Months):
Increased Drone Warfare: The RSF has significantly escalated the use of drones, posing a major challenge to the SAF and increasing the risk of civilian casualties.
Mercenary Involvement: Numerous reports suggest the RSF is employing mercenaries from countries including the UAE, further complicating the conflict.
Regional Spillover: The conflict in Sudan has triggered a growing refugee crisis in neighboring countries, particularly Chad and South Sudan.
Short-Term (Next 6 Months):
Continued Intensification of Fighting: Experts anticipate continued fighting between the SAF and RSF, particularly in Kordofan.
Expansion of Humanitarian Crisis: The conflict will likely worsen the humanitarian situation, requiring a substantial increase in international aid.
Heightened Risk of Regional Instability: The conflict poses a significant risk of destabilizing neighboring countries.
Long-Term (5-10 Years):
Potential for a Protracted Civil War: Without a comprehensive political settlement, the conflict in Sudan could continue for many years.
Regional Power Dynamics: The conflict could reshape regional power dynamics, potentially leading to increased influence of countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Impact on International Security: The instability in Sudan could have broader implications for international security, potentially contributing to the spread of extremism and illicit trafficking.
Call to Reflection:
The renewal of sanctions represents a tactical step, but its ultimate success hinges on a fundamental shift in the political landscape within Sudan. The international community must maintain its commitment to pressure, but also prioritize support for credible peace negotiations and long-term stability. Does a more targeted approach, coupled with robust humanitarian assistance, offer a realistic pathway forward, or are deeper structural reforms essential to address the root causes of the conflict? The conversation surrounding Sudan’s future demands sustained engagement and a critical assessment of the tools available to shape a more peaceful and prosperous outcome.