Sudan at a Crossroad: From Power Struggle to Humanitarian Catastrophe
By Christopher Zambakari
In the face of Sudan’s ongoing civil war, the term crossroads feels particularly apt. More than a single decision or direction, it represents the many pivotal moments that shape the nation’s future. But, the focus here is on a singular crossroad—how to end this devastating war. Sudan finds itself trapped in another power struggle, and the choices made at this intersection could either steer the country towards peace or plunge it deeper into chaos.
Yes, another power struggle.
A Complex and Troubled Past
Since its independence from the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium in 1956, Sudan has grappled with divisive governance and a lack of regard for the voices of its citizens. At different times, those in the political/military driver’s seat have routinely bypassed legal procedures and constitutional principles, amplifying the country’s governance challenges. As an example, the Muslim/Arab-aligned government’s imposition of Sharia Islamic law in 1983 aggravated tensions between itself and the predominantly non-Muslim southern regions. Known as the “September Laws,” the undemocratic implementation of public floggings, limb amputations, and even execution by crucifixion, ignited conflicts fueled by religious and ethnic divisions. These internal divisions ignited Sudan’s first two civil wars, and now the country is embroiled in its third civil war.
Sudan’s post-independence history has been plagued by authoritarianism and repeated military coups, a defining feature not just for the nation but for Africa as a whole. Since the 1950s, around 200 coups have been attempted across the continent. Sudan tops the list, having experienced 17 coups, six of which were successful. According to Sudan researcher Jonathan Powell, conditions like poverty and poor economic performance make African nations prone to such takeovers. Once a country experiences a successful coup, it often paves the way for more. Sudan’s political landscape, characterized as an “anocracy”—a system where civilian control over the military is weak—allows paramilitary forces to thrive and armed conflicts to persist, making a coup d'état a persistent threat.
In essence, Sudan’s contemporary history—a history it has owned since its 1956 independence from Anglo-Egyptian control—has been marked by violence and instability, claiming more victims and creating more wasteland each time. For almost 70 years, the country has grappled with perplexing issues: Is Sudan a secular or an Islamist state? How can Sudan engage its citizens in its governance? Is Sudan able to introduce a federal system more inclusive of its minorities? The answers don’t come easily.
Today: A Crisis of ‘Epic Proportions’
What the UN calls a “crisis of epic proportions,” is also recognized as “wholly man-made.” The brutal statistics borne of a power struggle between the leaders of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the unstoppable military of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) come from the Global Conflict Tracker. Almost 15,000 people killed, more than 8 million displaced, and more than 25 million in need of humanitarian aid.
The combatants, nay, the instigators of this internal bloodbath, the SAF and RSF, are inbred fighters in a sense. They are the de-facto leaders of Sudan, the SAF’s General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, in direct confrontation with his one-time deputy, RSF General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemedti.” Working together in 2019, the two toppled the 30-year regime of Omar al-Bashir. In a 2021 military coup, the two later removed the civilian prime minister and cabinet and suspended parts of Sudan’s constitution.
In December 2022, a new Framework Agreement (FA) for a democratic solution was reached that included buy-in from the SAF, RSF and civilian political leaders. The framework focused on how to integrate the RSF into the SAF, as well as leadership over the newly consolidated military, which created tensions that boiled over into the current scrum. Hemetti argued that additional reforms were necessary before integration could be instituted. Conversely, fears were voiced by the SAF that such reforms would leave it vulnerable to RSF domination.
The fighting has triggered a domino effect on neighboring countries, propelling the region to the brink of the world’s largest food insecurity crisis. This is not some tribal war as depicted in cartoons and old and over-simplified pictorial histories where one side throws spears at the other. Both the SAF and RSF, unable to fund modern military operations on their own, have received foreign support, including manufactured weapons and military equipment, to continue the chaos. For instance, resources and cash flow to the RSF combatants come from the United Arab Emirates and the mercenary Wagner Group. Iran and Egypt have planted their respective flags with the SAF in similar ways. It is possible that Iranian-made drones are being employed to help the Sudanese army regain territory around the capital city of Khartoum. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council in March 2024 urged the combatants to partake in a ceasefire agreement long enough to continue negotiations to end the war.
Sudan finds itself once again entrenched in a seemingly unbreakable cycle of violence. The country of about 50 million people stands at a crucial juncture where concerted efforts by regional and international stakeholders must encourage the warring factions, including the two individuals most unlikely to give up ground, al-Burhan and Hemedti, toward a common agenda of peace.
Where is the Outrage? Where is the Support?
Compared to the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, the conflict in Sudan is covered far less by the media. Where are the voices of world leadership? Where is the media coverage of the atrocities in Sudan? Between April 2023 and April 2024, the German Chancellery has mentioned Ukraine in press releases nearly 190 times, but Sudan just three times. Comparatively, The New York Times has produced nearly 10 times as many articles about Gaza than those featuring Sudan and more than 13 times as many news items mentioning Ukraine. The UN calls for humanitarian aid for the occupied Palestinian territories have been met and exceeded, while the same calls for assistance to Sudan are at 6 percent of its initial target.
Where are the rallies against the catastrophes in Sudan, the prominent voices demanding solutions? “You can’t help but watch the level of focus on crises like Gaza and Ukraine and wonder what just 5 percent of that energy could have done in a context like Sudan and how many thousands, tens of thousands of lives it could’ve saved,” says Alan Boswell, an expert on the region.
Conclusion
Beatles songwriter John Lennon included two pleas in a pair of his songs that today resonate for a solution in Sudan: “Come Together” and “Give Peace a Chance.” To come together and give peace a chance in Sudan, outside actors who have backed either military faction, must cut off their provisions of weaponry and military technology. Rather than adding fuel to the white-hot fire, they must come to the table to consider and commit to possible solutions that will end the fighting.
Garett Kurtz, an expert in Sub-Saharan African political and social issues, notes, “Bringing the leaders of the main warring parties to the table is a common mediation approach, but unfortunately it also excludes important third armed or unarmed parties from any peace negotiations.” Kurtz further adds, “It is increasingly likely that even if Burhan and Hemedti signed a credible ceasefire agreement and sincerely intended to honor it, many of their allies would not abide by it.”
Those already seated at the negotiation hardwood—including representatives from the UN, African Union (AU), Arab League, and East Africa’s Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) —take heed. Each brings diplomatic tools. For instance, the UN supports the efforts of AU and IGAD to end the war, while the AU has built a team to directly engage the two feuding factions in concert with civil society and international leaders. The Arab League declared in May 2024 its full solidarity with Sudan, affirming support for the country’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. IGAD launched a solution initiative to galvanize a “stronger collective response to create enabling conditions for durable solutions, which include voluntary repatriation, local integration, and resettlement and complementary pathways.” The U.S., Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have worked to secure a cease-fire agreement that has proven unsuccessful.
Ending the war requires more than just two power-hungry generals to reach an agreement. It demands a broad-based coalition, with active involvement from both international and regional actors committed to Sudan achieving peace. As Sudan expert Ahmed Soliman points out, this must be "a collective approach and a unified diplomatic bloc capable of pressuring the parties to stop fighting, including key players such as the US, UK, EU, Gulf nations, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and China.”
For the sake of Sudan’s future, stakeholders must put aside personal interests, engage in honest dialogue, and work together to find a sustainable solution. Only unified action can lead to lasting peace at this critical crossroad.
Christopher Zambakari holds a Doctor of Law and Policy degree from Northeastern University and is chief executive officer of The Zambakari Advisory. He is a Hartley B. and Ruth B. Barker Endowed Rotary Peace Fellow and the assistant editor of The Bulletin of the Sudan Studies Association. His areas of research and expertise are international law and security, political reform and economic development, governance and democracy, conflict management and prevention, and nation- and state-building processes in Africa and in the Middle East. His work has been published in leading law, economic and public policy journals.
1280px-Flag_of_Sudan.svg is by Prachatai and is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
