Navigating the ‘Forgotten War’ in Sudan

Analysis

By Angana Guha Roy 

Sudan has been mired in political instability for a long period of time. The nightmare that followed Sudan’s two warring factions entering into a deadly power struggle on April 15, 2023, has unfolded as a humanitarian and security crisis of staggering proportions.  Seen as the largest breadbasket of the region, Sudan is now on the brink of the world's worst famine. Ranked as the fourth-deadliest conflict in the world,  it has left over half of Sudan’s population in need of humanitarian aid, and over 30% displaced. Twenty months into the war, the majority of the reports claim, Sudan is home to the world's largest hunger and displacement crisis. Reportedly, more than 11.4 million people are now displaced within the country, and over 3 million people have fled Sudan to neighboring countries, triggering concerns regarding the cost of the refugee wave. The country’s health infrastructure has collapsed, with an estimated 70-80% of hospitals in Sudan’s conflict zones no longer in operation.

The amount of disaster the crisis has brought forth has raised questions on the procrastination approach of the international actors in adopting conflict resolving measures. In a recent report, Editor in Chief of the African Report, Patrick Smith, highlighted the ‘minimalist response’ of the major powers involved in dialogue. Following a meeting on the Sudan war titled ‘The Cost of Inaction’ at the UN Headquarters on September 25, 2024, hosted by Saudi Arabia, the US, and the EU,  Smith argued ‘inaction’ was ‘tragically’ the outcome, implicating the negligence the world has shown towards Sudan.  In the report Smith mentioned, ‘of $2.7 billion requested for food and medicine, the world’s richest countries only raised less than half that target… Given the magnitude of the emergency, it's hard to imagine a more minimalist approach.

The breadth and intensity of UN rhetoric on the various facets of the crisis have been challenged by the Sudanese government multiple times. The credibility of recent UNSC reports came under scrutiny when the affirmations made by the US, UK, and France in support of the UNSC with regard to Sudan’s famine situation were challenged by the Sudanese government, calling it inaccurate.  Earlier in September 2024 Sudanese government rejected a report published by a UN Fact-Finding Mission for overstepping its ‘mandate’. The report accused warring factions in the country of committing severe human rights violations that could amount to war crimes.

Sudan’s internal security crisis has a strategic dimension too. In the span of twenty months, the crisis has witnessed the involvement of regional and international powers rallying their support to warring factions whom the UN has accused of committing war crimes. Given the strategic geography of resource-rich Sudan, it has emerged as a theater of coldwar for proxy power contestation. While the UAE has relentlessly promoted humanitarian efforts, satellite images and reports reveal that it has been supplying arms to paramilitary forces violating the UN arms embargo. Countries including  Russia, China, Serbia, and Turkiye have been accused of smuggling in resources through Libya, Chad, and the Central African Republic, according to claims made by Amnesty International. The UN has accused foreign powers of prolonging the war.

The war has further elicited questions about the breadth of Russian influence in Sudan.  The US has accused Russia of playing both sides of the conflict to advance its political objectives.  On the other hand, Russia has been seeking a naval port in Sudan. Critics argue that having a naval base in Sudan will speed up Russia’s momentum of strategic maneuver in the region. Apart from giving it access to key theatres of the Red Sea and the wider Middle East, it will help prop up its war economy as well as the involvement of the Wagner group, allegedly involved in exploiting Sudan’s gold resources.

In November 2024, Russia even vetoed a draft UK-backed UN Security Council Resolution calling for a ceasefire in Sudan, accusing the UK of meddling in Sudanese affairs without involving Sudan itself.  While the US alleged Russia’s move was a calculated step in supporting its illicit gold trade, the latter accused the US of fabricating stories to leverage its own strategic objectives in Sudan.

However, the concerns pertaining to  Russia’s increasing influence in Sudan have not matched the efforts undertaken by the international players in playing a border role in the peace or crisis situation in Sudan. The recent US sanctions on Rapid Support Forces, accusing the latter of committing genocide, have garnered manifold criticism for being too late, given the human cost.  This was preceded by the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General's report recommending an international intervention to establish safe zones in Sudan. The report called for a ceasefire, diplomatic efforts, and protection measures. It failed to gain much traction.

The situation in Sudan demands immediate renewed attention and a shift in approach from procrastination by the international actors.  The inability to come up with solutions and effective mechanisms to resolve the crisis will further increase the human cost and demonstrate the inaccountability of the international community.

Further, the crisis in Sudan is a wake-up call for addressing the immediate and long-term threat from the rise of paramilitary militias. Just as the international community needs to understand the urgency of the crisis, it also needs to speed up the rhetoric on zero tolerance for non-state actors who commit war crimes, plot terrorist actions, and crimes against humanity. A failure to do so will multiply the spillover effect on governance and geopolitics at an unprecedented scale.

Disclaimer: This paper is the author's individual scholastic contribution and does not necessarily reflect the organization's viewpoint.