The humanitarian landscape in Sudan is, unequivocally, a catastrophe. Over 24 million people – two-thirds of the nation’s population – require assistance, with 24 million facing acute food insecurity. This confluence of factors, exacerbated by nearly three years of intense conflict, has transformed Sudan into the world’s most devastating humanitarian crisis, demanding a coordinated and sustained international response. The recent summit in New York, convened by representatives of the African Union, the European Union, and key bilateral partners, underscores the urgency of the situation and highlights the precarious state of Sudan’s future. However, achieving a genuinely sustainable resolution necessitates a nuanced understanding of the deep-seated complexities driving the conflict and a long-term commitment beyond immediate relief efforts.
The core issues within Sudan are rooted in a decades-old struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), initially fueled by power grabs, ethnic divisions, and control over valuable resources, particularly gold. The RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), initially rose to prominence through its involvement in the Janjaweed militias during the Darfur conflict, further complicating the narrative and embedding deep-seated grievances. The conflict’s escalation in April 2023, triggered by a power struggle between the two generals, has resulted in widespread displacement, civilian casualties, and a severe breakdown of infrastructure. According to data released by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), over 9.4 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) reside within Sudan, while millions more have fled to neighboring countries, primarily Chad, South Sudan, and Egypt. “The scale of the displacement is unprecedented in recent African history,” notes Dr. Fatima Ali, Senior Analyst at the International Crisis Group. “It’s not just a conflict; it’s a forced migration crisis of immense proportions.”
The recent New York summit, while representing a valuable diplomatic step, revealed the limitations of short-term interventions. The declaration’s emphasis on a ceasefire, protection of critical infrastructure, and accountability for human rights violations, aligns with established international norms and reflects the positions of key stakeholders. However, the declaration’s impact hinges on the willingness of the warring parties to engage in meaningful negotiations and adhere to existing resolutions. “The fundamental challenge lies in the lack of trust between the SAF and RSF,” argues Professor David Cohen, a specialist in Sudanese politics at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Affairs. “Hemedti’s control over significant financial resources and his ties to international actors further complicate any attempts at a negotiated settlement.”
Several critical concerns remain. The involvement of external actors, including the provision of military support, continues to fuel the conflict. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1556 (2004), which prohibits the supply of arms to Sudan, remains largely unheeded. Furthermore, the declaration’s call for a “inclusive and transparent transition process” – crucial for addressing the underlying political grievances – requires concrete mechanisms for ensuring the participation of diverse Sudanese voices, including women, youth, and marginalized communities. The recent extension of the Adré border-crossing point until December 2025, aimed at facilitating humanitarian access, is a positive development, but its success depends on the warring parties’ cooperation.
Looking ahead, the next six months are likely to see a continuation of the humanitarian crisis, with further displacement, food insecurity, and civilian casualties. The longer-term (5-10 year) outlook depends largely on the ability of the international community to exert sustained pressure on the warring parties, to secure a durable ceasefire, and to facilitate a genuine political transition. The creation of a strong, accountable transitional government, capable of upholding the rule of law and addressing the root causes of the conflict, remains the ultimate objective. However, the inherent challenges – including the deeply entrenched interests of the warring factions and the pervasive influence of external actors – suggest that a rapid resolution is highly improbable. Continued instability threatens to exacerbate regional security risks, potentially contributing to further refugee flows and increasing the risk of terrorism.
The humanitarian pause proposed in El-Fasher, a strategically vital area, is a crucial step, but its success will be contingent on the SAF and RSF agreeing to a cessation of hostilities. The call for upholding international human rights and humanitarian law represents a fundamental imperative. The persistent commitment of key stakeholders – including the African Union, the European Union, and the United States – to provide financial and diplomatic support is essential. The extension of the Adré border-crossing point highlights the importance of ensuring unimpeded humanitarian access.
Ultimately, Sudan’s frozen conflict demands a coordinated, multi-faceted approach. Sustained engagement, coupled with a deep understanding of the complexities at play, is needed to navigate this challenging landscape and secure a future for the Sudanese people. The situation demands a critical reflection on the limitations of traditional peacekeeping models and the need for innovative strategies that address the root causes of the conflict. It is a crisis that demands a robust, unwavering, and ultimately, human response.