The ongoing conflict in Sudan has reached a pivotal moment, with nearly two years of violence resulting in staggering casualties and widespread displacement. As the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) make significant advances against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the dynamics of power in the region are shifting, raising critical questions about the future of governance and stability in Sudan.
Since the outbreak of hostilities in April 2023, the conflict has claimed the lives of at least 20,000 individuals, with some estimates suggesting the true toll may be much higher. More than 14 million people have been forced from their homes, and the humanitarian crisis has escalated to alarming levels, with parts of the country facing famine conditions. Recent military operations have seen the SAF reclaim territory in the Greater Khartoum area, including key districts and provinces like White Nile and Gezira. This resurgence marks a significant shift in momentum, as noted by Alan Boswell from the International Crisis Group, who remarked that this is the first time the SAF has effectively reversed the RSF’s advances since the conflict began.
However, the prospect of a military victory raises concerns about the potential for a new phase of conflict rather than a resolution. Should the SAF succeed in retaking Khartoum, it may lead to a de facto partition of Sudan, with distinct zones controlled by the military and the RSF. This division is unlikely to foster stability, as both factions have shown little interest in genuine peace negotiations. Military chief Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan’s reluctance to engage in serious talks, coupled with the RSF’s determination to continue fighting, suggests that the conflict could persist, even if territorial control shifts.
The RSF’s recent announcement of establishing a parallel government in Kenya underscores the complexities of the situation. This move, described by Cameron Hudson from the Center for Strategic and International Studies as an attempt to achieve a political victory unattainable through military means, could further entrench the divide within Sudan. The RSF’s charter, which advocates for a secular and decentralized state, reflects the aspirations of various communities seeking autonomy from Khartoum’s central authority. Yet, the RSF’s history of violence and human rights abuses casts a shadow over its legitimacy, as highlighted by the Biden administration’s sanctions against RSF leader Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo for alleged genocide.
The implications of this parallel government extend beyond mere political maneuvering. As Khalid Omar, a pro-democracy activist, pointed out, Sudan is at risk of fragmentation, a scenario that could lead to further violence and instability. The RSF’s alliances with various political factions, including the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), could broaden the conflict into previously untouched regions, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.
Despite the grim outlook, there are signs of hope for some displaced Sudanese. The military’s territorial gains have allowed a limited number of individuals to return home, particularly those who had fled to neighboring Egypt. Reports indicate that around 500 people are returning daily, with some finding safety in areas now controlled by the SAF. However, the situation remains dire, with ongoing attacks by the RSF on civilian gatherings and a lack of essential resources such as food, water, and medical care.
As the situation in Sudan continues to evolve, the international community must remain vigilant and responsive. The complexities of the conflict demand nuanced understanding and strategic engagement to support a path toward peace and stability. The voices of Sudanese civilians, who bear the brunt of this violence, must be amplified in discussions about the future of their country. The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but the resilience of the Sudanese people and the potential for a unified push toward democracy and human rights offer a glimmer of hope amidst the turmoil.