The one-year anniversary of the civil war in Sudan highlights the urgent need for peace

April 15, 2024 marked the one-year anniversary of the start of the civil war in Sudan, which shows no signs of stopping despite the dire humanitarian situation on the ground. The war itself is driven largely by the ambitions of two Sudanese generals, who worked together to end a democratic transition before fighting each other for power. Much of Sudan’s history has been consumed by elite-driven violence. The overthrow of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir, who ruled for 30 years at the head of an unusual coalition regime of military officers and Islamists and carried out a genocide in Darfur, offered hopes for a democratic transition. Following the massacre of peaceful protestors in Khartoum by the Rapid Support Forces (the successors of the Janjaweed militias which had carried out systematic atrocities in Darfur), a military-civilian transitional government was implemented, with a plan for a move to democracy. Just two years later, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF led yet another coup, returning Sudan to full military rule. 

Almost immediately, tensions emerged between the SAF, led by Abel Fattah al-Burhan, and the RSF, led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, which escalated to open war on April 15, 2023. The motivations behind this war are simple – the two men, who have spent decades as Sudan’s ruling elites, did not want to relinquish their power. Neither was willing to follow the terms of a deal that would have seen an eventual democratic transition, the incorporation of the RSF into the SAF, and a power-sharing agreement until civilian governance began. 

Dagalo has long used the RSF as a means to bolster his own personal power, gaining control over significant sources of state revenue, especially gold mines, building relationships with outside actors, like the Wagner Group and the United Arab Emirates (sending his troops to fight in Yemen alongside the UAE). Under his command, the RSF has become notorious for their systematic human rights abuses, first in Darfur and now in this war, using sexual violence, slavery, and hunger as weapons of war. The SAF has also taken part in numerous atrocities, often in collaboration with the RSF. Neither side is interested in peace, both seek to continue the dominance of military elites over Sudan, just with slightly different ideology and a different figurehead. 

The humanitarian situation today in Sudan is horrific. While Dagalo visits African capitals to pose for pictures with the likes of Paul Kagame and Cyril Ramaphosa, his forces commit routine crimes against humanity. As Peace News reported in January, the power struggle at the heart of the conflict has been co-opted by other elite interests, by both Sudanese and foreign actors. Both sides have tried to include past figures in attempts to build civilian governments, to present themselves as a more sympathetic force internationally. Dagalo has tried to present the RSF as opposed to the growing influence of Islamist elites in the SAF, but his past makes it clear that he is no democratic savior. 

The reality in Sudan is that neither the SAF nor the RSF have any remaining credibility considering the damage they have done to the country. A recent event held by the Alliance for Peacebuilding in Washington, DC, featuring top US officials and female Sudanese human rights activists, laid bare the challenges facing the Sudanese people, especially women. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the American ambassador to the United Nations, and Tom Perriello, the US Special Envoy for Sudan, spoke about the millions of people currently displaced, the widespread use of sexual violence, and challenges in delivering aid to those most in need. 

Despite the horrific situation in Sudan and the surrounding countries, the war has received little attention in the mainstream media around the world. One major reason is that the war is taking place amid two other major conflicts – Russia’s war on Ukraine and Israel’s war on Gaza. Both received far more global attention for a number of reasons. 

In Sudan, the combination of a war that broke out in a sudden and confusing manner – to this day it is unclear which side fired the first shots – the lack of a robust media narrative, and the lack of the appealing narrative qualities of Ukraine meant that there was far less coverage. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, its prolonged and highly visible military buildup, and accurate and public warnings from Western intelligence agencies meant that there was a significant international media presence in Ukraine that was well-prepared and ready to report on the invasion. A war for power between two generals already implicated in genocidal atrocities, who had collaborated to destroy hopes for democracy and were solely fighting for power, presented a far more difficult conflict to cover, especially considering the relative lack of international press presence in Sudan. 

In Gaza, the nature of the conflict was almost perfectly set up to monopolize media attention. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been an emotionally resonant issue for Jews and Muslims, and has become a strong issue for millions across the world, as well as a high-profile political issue in both national and international politics. 

The availability of images of death and destruction in Gaza are in stark contrast to the relative lack of information on Sudan – Israel used images of civilians killed by Hamas to justify its military action, which in turn led to constant worldwide coverage of the relentless death and destruction inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli military. While the October 7th attack took the world by surprise, there was already an international media presence in Israel and the Palestinian territories, and images and videos of the conflict quickly spread to audiences of millions across the world – this was not the case for Sudan. 

In Sudan, there are two armed forces with a proven track record of crimes against humanity, led by two men who only agree on their contempt for democracy and started a war solely for the pursuit of power. There is no sympathetic actor, no wider conflict, no history of ethnic or religious conflict, and no clear geopolitical divide, and therefore no easy media narrative. Sudan has had decades of conflict, but it has primarily been within its own borders, between people of the same religion and backed by a wide variety of actors, with different ideologies and motivations. What coverage it does receive is focused mainly on the scale of the conflict, instead of potential solutions. 

Another major issue with bringing an end to this destructive war is a lack of will in the international community. Not only are both sides responsible for the humanitarian crisis and for numerous war crimes, but they receive significant backing from a wide variety of international actors. As Periello and Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield mentioned, the United States has taken the lead on humanitarian initiatives, but more needs to be done, and the US cannot be the only actor involved. 

Instead of working for peace, many regional and international actors have used the war as proxy conflict to further their own interests. Russia, which had already been using engagement in Sudan to fund its invasion of Ukraine, has used the Wagner Group, mercenaries with a long track record of atrocities in Ukraine and throughout Africa, to support the RSF. As a result, Ukraine has sent its special forces to combat Wagner forces, and apparently at times to fight the RSF itself. 

The UAE is another resolute backer of the RSF, having a longstanding business relationship with Dagalo and recruiting his troops to fight in Yemen. Khalifa Haftar, a Libyan warlord backed by the UAE and Wagner, has helped facilitate assistance to the RSF. The Emirati role illustrates the challenge facing international efforts to build peace in Sudan – publicly, it is one of the main actors pushing for a peace conference and publicizing its efforts to send aid – although that aid is often weapons intended for the RSF. 

Egypt backs the SAF, as does Eritrea, and, more recently, Iran. Iranian drones, extremely effective for Russia in Ukraine, have helped the SAF regain military parity. These two disparate coalitions, made up of states with varying motivations, mostly have one thing in common – they place their own interests over peace in Sudan. The US and its partners had focused on democratic development, and now find themselves on the outside looking in, as the people of Sudan are prioritized less than geopolitical goals and access to Sudan’s abundant natural resources. 

This is a senseless war, seen in the incoherence of the two opposed coalitions – for example, Ukraine and Iran aiding the same side while Iran has supported Russia’s war in Ukraine, providing drones used to relentlessly target civilians. While some of Sudan’s neighbors have been helpful, accepting and assisting the many refugees who have fled the fighting, the ongoing internationalization of the war hampers global efforts to build peace. As long as the two generals continue to fight for control, other actors will be drawn to the chance to gain influence, access to Sudan’s resources, and to hamper the ambitions of their rivals. The longer the war goes on, the higher the risk of further spillover and escalation in an already unstable and fragile region.

As the three activists (all women) who spoke at the AfP event made clear, women were at the forefront of the 2019 revolution and subsequent protests against the military, but have been excluded from discussions of how to end the war. At the same time, women are impacted the most by the war, with millions at risk of sexual violence. Many must become sole caregivers to children as the country faces an acute food shortage and near-famine conditions. Peace negotiations must include the voices of Sudanese women, instead when they take place at all the participants are those who are responsible for sexual violence and other atrocities. 

An upcoming conference in Paris is intended to raise funds for humanitarian assistance, and while this is a positive step, it should be the first step in a wider process to end this crisis. Until action is taken to help, protect, and include the voices of women, there will be no just and lasting peace for the people of Sudan. For that to happen, the war in Sudan must be seen around the world as the elite-driven humanitarian emergency that it is, not as an opportunity for power or influence. Above all, Sudan deserves the same attention given to Ukraine and Gaza, and the same level of mobilization to advocate for peace from states, NGOs, and activists.