The implications for global stability are undeniable. The current situation, characterized by indiscriminate violence and systematic abuse, extends far beyond Sudan’s borders. With an estimated 33 million people in need of assistance, 14 million displaced, and widespread famine threatening millions of children, the conflict constitutes the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. The dynamics are deeply rooted in pre-existing tensions – namely, the involvement of regional actors, particularly the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) – intertwined with vested interests and the destabilizing effects of arms proliferation. “Survivors consistently spoke of widespread killings, including indiscriminate shootings and point-blank executions of civilians in homes, streets, open areas or while attempting to flee the city,” a report published by the Fact-Finding Mission detailed, illustrating the brutal reality faced by civilians caught in the crossfire. As one community worker stated, “more than half of the women had been subjected to sexual violence.” This situation highlights the deliberate targeting of civilian populations, and the insidious nature of exploitation.
Historically, Sudan’s conflicts have been shaped by cycles of military coups, ethnic divisions, and external interference. The current conflict can be seen as a culmination of decades of unresolved tensions, exacerbated by the RSF’s rise to power in 2021 and subsequent struggle for control with the SAF. The legacy of the Darfur conflict – a period of intense violence and human rights abuses – underscores the fragility of peace and the enduring challenge of securing accountability for past crimes. “Ethnic targeting” was a key element of the conflict, according to the Fact-Finding Mission’s report, coupled with accusations of “extermination”. The situation has drawn in numerous external actors, including countries providing financial and military support, further complicating the diplomatic landscape. As stated by a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, “The conflict serves as a microcosm of broader geopolitical tensions in the Horn of Africa, with regional powers vying for influence and exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.”
Key stakeholders include the SAF and RSF, whose warring factions demonstrate a stark lack of commitment to civilian protection. The United States, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other regional and international players hold significant influence, and their actions—or lack thereof—will determine the trajectory of the crisis. The UN, under the leadership of the UK, is attempting to mobilize international support, but facing persistent challenges in securing access and funding. The UN 2026 appeal is currently just 13% funded, severely limiting the capacity of frontline agencies to deliver life-saving assistance. The UK, as the third largest Sudan donor, has pledged $200 million dollars and $54 million dollars for Sudanese refugees in Chad, while announcing a further $27 million dollars to support survivors of sexual violence. “Aid alone won’t stop this,” UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron emphasized, underscoring the need for broader diplomatic initiatives.
Short-term outcomes (next 6 months) point to continued displacement, escalating violence, and a worsening humanitarian situation. The risk of famine remains high, and the disruption of humanitarian supply chains will undoubtedly lead to increased suffering. The proliferation of extremist groups, including ISIS-affiliated organizations, presents a further security threat. Long-term (5-10 years), the potential for protracted instability and regional conflict remains significant, with implications for migration patterns, geopolitical alignments, and the security of neighboring countries.
The United Nations Security Council’s current focus on the Sudan crisis presents an opportunity, but also a test. The immediate needs are clear: unimpeded humanitarian access, protection for civilians and aid workers, and a rapid scaling up of humanitarian assistance. A lasting solution requires a concerted effort to achieve a lasting ceasefire and a path towards a civilian-led transition, supporting civil society groups and actively promoting a durable peace agreement. The US-led efforts, involving the “Quad” nations – Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the United States – provide a framework for this diplomatic engagement. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives hinges on the willingness of all parties to negotiate in good faith. “We need that same energy and determination we have rightly brought to the peace process for Gaza now to bring peace for Sudan,” urged a high-level diplomat involved in mediation efforts.
The pursuit of accountability is also paramount. Sanctions against individuals implicated in war crimes, coupled with the ICC’s ongoing investigation, represent crucial steps toward justice. The recent proposal to designate RSF commanders by the UK, US, and France for UN Security Council consideration demonstrates a commitment to holding perpetrators accountable. “It is time for more sanctions against the perpetrators of these vile crimes,” stated UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps.
The situation in Sudan demands a united and resolute response. It is a tragedy unfolding on a global scale, a stark reminder of the fragility of peace and the devastating consequences of inaction. The international community must rise to the challenge, not with grand pronouncements, but with concrete actions—actions guided by the voices of those suffering most, and fueled by the recognition that the future of Sudan, and indeed the stability of the wider region, depends on it. Let this crisis serve as a catalyst for renewed commitment to multilateralism, humanitarian principles, and the pursuit of lasting peace.
Let the voices of the women of Sudan continue to echo within this chamber, demanding justice and a future free from violence.