The root of Sudan’s current crisis lies in a protracted history of authoritarian rule, ethnic tensions, and economic instability. Following decades of repressive rule under Omar al-Bashir, the 2019 revolution ousted the dictator, setting in motion a transition to democratic governance. However, this transition was repeatedly undermined by power struggles between the military and civilian forces, culminating in a violent coup led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in April 2021. The subsequent clashes between the SAF and the RSF, initially a power struggle, have rapidly morphed into a brutal civil war, devastating the country and forcing millions from their homes. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), as of November 2023, over 11 million people – nearly half of Sudan’s population – are in need of humanitarian assistance.
Stakeholders involved in this conflict are deeply entrenched. The SAF, led by General Burhan, seeks to maintain military dominance and control over the country’s resources. The RSF, commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti), has its roots in the Janjaweed militias implicated in widespread human rights abuses. The United Nations Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS) is attempting to facilitate a political transition, but its influence is limited by the warring parties’ intransigence. The United States, through the Quad (US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain), has been attempting to mediate a resolution, while regional powers like Egypt and Ethiopia have taken varying stances, often aligned with the SAF.
Data from the World Food Programme (WFP) paints a harrowing picture of the food security situation. As of December 2023, nearly 18 million people – more than a third of the population – face acute hunger. “The situation is incredibly dire,” stated WFP Executive Director David Beasley in a recent briefing. “We are seeing levels of hunger we haven’t witnessed since the 2011 famine in Somalia.” The conflict has disrupted agricultural production, destroyed infrastructure, and restricted access to markets, driving up food prices and exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. Furthermore, disruptions to international aid deliveries, including the expulsion of WFP staff, have significantly hampered humanitarian efforts. Recent satellite imagery reveals widespread damage to critical infrastructure including hospitals and water supply systems.
The United Kingdom’s response, outlined in a recent public statement, reflects a cautious approach rooted in a recognition of the complexity of the situation. The UK’s sanctions against RSF commanders, announced shortly after the Kadugli attack, demonstrate a willingness to hold those responsible for atrocities accountable. However, the statement’s emphasis on a “no military solution” highlights the UK’s acknowledgement of the deep-seated political and military dynamics at play. “We believe that a sustainable solution can only be achieved through a Sudanese-led process,” stated a UK Foreign Office spokesperson during a briefing. “However, achieving this requires a genuine commitment to dialogue and a willingness to compromise from all parties.” The call for a humanitarian pause and the condemnation of attacks on humanitarian personnel resonate with international legal obligations and ethical considerations.
Looking ahead, the short-term prognosis remains bleak. Within the next six months, the conflict is likely to intensify, potentially leading to further displacement and a worsening humanitarian crisis. The risk of a wider regional conflict also remains elevated, given the involvement of neighboring countries and the potential for spillover effects. Long-term, without a fundamental shift in the political landscape and a sustained commitment to a peaceful resolution, Sudan risks becoming a protracted conflict zone, further destabilizing the Horn of Africa and posing a significant security challenge to the international community. The presence of various armed groups, including those with links to ISIS, complicates the situation even further.
The current situation demands a multi-pronged strategy. Continued diplomatic pressure, including targeted sanctions, must be coupled with robust humanitarian assistance. However, the UK’s emphasis on a “Sudanese-owned and civilian-led transition” is crucial, but its efficacy hinges on the willingness of the warring parties to engage in meaningful negotiations. A sustained commitment to supporting civil society organizations and local peacebuilding initiatives is also essential. As the US Special Envoy for Sudan, John Burtin, recently noted, “The key is to empower the Sudanese people to determine their own future.” This requires acknowledging the deep-seated grievances that fuel the conflict and working to address the root causes of instability. The challenge is immense, and the stakes are extraordinarily high.
The descent of Sudan underscores a fundamental truth about international intervention: the ability to fundamentally shift a conflict’s trajectory is often limited by the political will of those involved. What questions remain unanswered regarding the long-term consequences of inaction? What strategies, beyond sanctions and diplomacy, could genuinely shift the balance of power and foster a sustainable path to peace? Share your thoughts and contribute to the discussion.