Historical Context: The roots of the current conflict in Sudan are deeply intertwined with decades of civil war, primarily between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), initially formed as a paramilitary group. The 2019 power-sharing agreement, intended to transition Sudan to civilian rule following the ouster of Omar al-Bashir, quickly fractured, leading to open warfare in April 2023. Pre-existing ethnic tensions, particularly between Arab and non-Arab communities, fueled by unequal access to resources and political marginalization, have been weaponized by both sides. The legacy of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005, while successful in ending the north-south conflict, failed to adequately address the concerns of marginalized groups in the west and south, contributing to the current instability. Key international actors, including the United States, the European Union, and African nations, have repeatedly called for a ceasefire, but progress has been limited due to the intransigence of the warring parties and the complex dynamics of regional power politics.
Stakeholders and Motivations: The primary stakeholders in the conflict include the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti). The SAF’s motivation is to maintain its control over the state and military resources, while the RSF seeks to consolidate its power and influence, challenging the traditional dominance of the military establishment. Regional actors, such as Egypt, which has provided support to the SAF, and Ethiopia, with its own internal conflicts, also hold significant influence. The African Union (AU) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) have attempted to mediate the conflict, but their efforts have been hampered by the lack of trust between the warring parties. Furthermore, external powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia, are strategically invested in Sudan’s stability, driven by concerns regarding counterterrorism, regional security, and access to strategic resources. According to a recent report by the International Crisis Group, “the conflict is not solely a Sudanese affair; it’s increasingly influenced by external actors seeking to expand their geopolitical reach.”
Data and Analysis: The United Nations estimates that over 24.8 million Sudanese are in need of humanitarian assistance, a figure projected to rise dramatically. The World Food Programme (WFP) reports that approximately 6 million children are acutely malnourished. Analysis from the Institute for the Study of War reveals that the RSF has been strategically positioned to control vital logistics routes, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. “The RSF’s control over key supply lines has effectively cut off access to millions of civilians, creating a deliberate tactic of starvation and displacement,” stated Dr. Fatima Hassan, Senior Analyst at the Centre for Conflict Analysis, in a briefing earlier this month. The displacement figures highlight the profound disruption to Sudan’s economy, which was already struggling before the conflict. Data from the Central Bank of Sudan indicates a collapse in foreign reserves, crippling the nation’s ability to import essential goods.
Recent Developments: Over the past six months, the conflict has intensified, with heavy fighting concentrated in Darfur, Kordofan, and Khartoum. The humanitarian situation has deteriorated significantly, with reports of widespread looting and sexual violence. In January 2024, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the violence and urging the warring parties to engage in meaningful negotiations. The US and UK have continued to impose targeted sanctions against individuals and entities involved in the conflict, while providing significant humanitarian aid. Furthermore, discussions are ongoing within the Quad (US, UK, UAE, Saudi Arabia) regarding potential levers of influence to pressure the warring parties toward a ceasefire.
Future Impact & Insight: Short-term, the conflict is likely to continue to destabilize the region, exacerbating the refugee crisis in Chad and potentially triggering further migration flows to Europe. Longer-term, the conflict risks solidifying a state of protracted conflict and state failure in Sudan, potentially leading to the rise of extremist groups and further regional instability. A protracted civil war could have a destabilizing impact on the Horn of Africa, with ramifications for counterterrorism efforts, maritime security, and regional trade routes. The current humanitarian situation presents a “tipping point” where further deterioration could lead to a collapse of governance structures and a deepening of the crisis. According to projections from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, “a prolonged conflict in Sudan could cost the global economy over $100 billion in lost productivity and trade revenue.” There is a significant risk of a protracted humanitarian catastrophe, demanding a sustained commitment from the international community.
Call for Reflection: The ongoing crisis in Sudan serves as a stark reminder of the failures of diplomacy and the urgent need for a more proactive and coordinated approach to conflict prevention. The world’s response to Sudan’s plight underscores a critical gap in international norms regarding the protection of civilians, particularly women and girls, in armed conflict. Sharing this information and engaging in critical discussion about the lessons learned is paramount, fostering a greater awareness of the complexities and consequences of inaction.