By Chris Stockburger
Despite being considered a humanitarian catastrophe, the civil war in Sudan has been one of the most under-reported conflicts in recent memory. In mid-April, Sudan descended into a brutal civil war, with its impact hitting innocent civilians the hardest. In mid-January, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) announced that over 7.4 million Sudanese people have been displaced since the start of the conflict in April, and nearly 25 million are in need of assistance. Even worse, outbreaks of cholera, malaria, and other diseases burden an already collapsing healthcare system, with 11 million in need of medical assistance. Both gender and ethnic violence have been perpetrated by both sides of the conflict, with 4 million women and girls at risk of sexual violence, and over 10,000 deaths. While hundreds of NGOs and humanitarian partners are attempting to assist those in need, they have also faced violence from both sides. Unfortunately, this suffering will continue for the Sudanese people until a resolution is negotiated. With hardly any major media coverage compared to other conflicts around the world, domestic pressure on leaders to help leverage a deal has been near non-existent.
Sudan has suffered from decades of conflict and violence that have led to the current conflict. Sudan was colonized by Britain for decades, but after gaining independence in 1956, fighting occurred between the country’s wealthier northern region, which was majority Arab and Muslim, and its less-developed southern region, where most people identify as Christian or animist. This divide would lead to the succession of South Sudan in 2011, but only after a bloody civil war resulting in an estimated 2 million deaths. Many of the atrocities took place after a military coup in 1989 by Omar al-Bashir, who used a paramilitary group called the Janjaweed (now known as the RSF) to commit mass atrocities against non-Arab populations in Sudan's Darfur region.
In 2019, a coalition between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) engaged in an uprising against al-Bashir after protests had ravaged the country. The SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the RSF, led by former warlord Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, established a joint civilian-military government with protest leaders. Unfortunately, this arrangement did not last long. When elections were due to be held, the army decided to take power for itself, claiming it was stepping in to avert a civil war. After the military coup, tensions over how the RSF would integrate into the SAF eventually led to fighting that has intensified over the last nine months.
When Omar al-Bashir was overthrown in 2019, there was hope that a civilian-led democratic government could finally take hold of power in Sudan. However, these democratic ambitions were deterred by the U.S. and other Western states, which pressured civilian protesters and the military to form a transitional government. The lack of support for grass-roots democratic groups was detrimental to the stability of Sudan, as the transitional government was quickly overthrown by means of a coup and replaced with military control. In response to the coup, the US froze $700 million of aid to Sudan but did not sanction either generals.
Even more concerning, is the lack of priority the U.S. has given to Sudan. The U.S. failed to invite Sudanese leaders to talks with regional leaders in 2022 and failed to discuss the situation in Sudan with key regional players, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, during summits in Saudi Arabia. When the United States, United Nations, African Union, and regional groups worked with the Sudanese military to compose a framework agreement to transition to civilian rule in December 2022, they failed to involve grassroots protest groups and did not offer mechanisms to hold the generals accountable. Ultimately, as Justin Lynch, an analyst for Foreign Policy, concludes, the failures of U.S. officials and their foreign policy exacerbated the conflict in Sudan.
The lack of global leadership in assuaging the crisis has resulted in key regional players attempting to enter the power vacuum. According to the RAND Corporation, “the conflict in Sudan has provided an opportunity for Gulf countries to exert greater influence in regional politics, but it has also led to a growing rift between two key Gulf states: Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Each now finds itself on opposite sides of what could become a proxy war.” This is harmful to broader US interests in the region, not only in Africa but in the Middle East as well. If a Saudi-UAE proxy conflict grows in Sudan, the results could be dire for regional stability. RAND warns that the “rift between Saudi Arabia and the UAE could spill into proxy conflicts at the political level, if not outright wars, across the Horn of Africa”. RAND concludes that this risks drawing key U.S. allies and partners in the greater Middle East, such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, into proxy competition with one another. If U.S. allies and partners take opposite sides of proxy conflicts, this could be detrimental to U.S. cooperation, alliances, and influence in the region. With conflicts such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Syrian Civil War, and South Sudan’s own civil war still raging across the region, regional cooperation is vital for the negotiation of truces, ceasefires, and future agreements.
While the United States has made errors and decisions that have weakened its position in Sudan, there are still multiple reasons why the U.S. must stay involved and engaged to prevent conflict in the region. To start, The United States must work with regional actors, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to prioritize the resolution of the War in Sudan and allow aid to reach the millions of civilians most vulnerable. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have significant leverage over the Sudanese generals on both sides of the conflict that can be used to achieve a cease-fire and allow humanitarian aid to enter the country. On a global scale, the United State’s continued involvement is critical because of the political power vacuum in Sudan that both Russia and China are attempting to exploit. While China has officially remained neutral in the conflict, it seeks to expand the Belt and Road Initiative already deeply linked to Sudan. Russia and the RSF, on the other hand, have cooperated together since 2017, establishing a network of gold mining and smuggling operations in Sudan to fund Russia’s Wagner operations and generate profit, which has helped soften the blow of international sanctions in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine. Even after Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin’s controversial death in late August, Wagner is strongly established in Sudan. Additionally, both Russia and China have aspirations for a Red Sea naval base, and both countries will attempt to ensure that the outcome of the conflict plays favorably toward their goals. If the United States fails to remain committed to Sudan, then the outcome of the conflict in Sudan may haunt U.S. leaders for decades to come.
Comments