The civil war in Sudan, which began in April 2023, is on the verge of spreading to the entire Horn of Africa. With almost 10 million people internally displaced and more than 25 million facing acute hunger, humanitarian losses are already catastrophic and continue to grow. This tragedy is a result of the endless cycle of failed peace initiatives and the escalation of conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Ironically, every attempt at peace seems to only exacerbate the war, plunging civil society even deeper into despair.
Negotiations in Geneva proposed by the US have failed before even starting
The chaos in Sudan reflects previous conflicts that have occurred on the African continent over the past 10 years, but the consequences of this conflict are particularly alarming. This is due, amongst other things, to the plans of the US, which is trying to put a strong rein on the richest state on the African continent in terms of natural resources.
In this regard, it should be noted that the US-sponsored negotiations to ensure a ceasefire in the devastating conflict in Sudan started behind closed doors at an unknown location in Switzerland on August 14, despite the absence of representatives of the Government of Sudan, which is dissatisfied with the format of the negotiations. The Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, loyal to the regular army fighting paramilitary groups, reasonably stated that it ‘wants more discussions’ before accepting the US invitation to negotiate a ceasefire.
The talks were convened by US Special Envoy for Sudan Tom Perriello, who stated after the opening of the meeting that it was “high time to silence the weapons”. Of course, such a pompous phrase and opinion would be good if they were simultaneously addressed to the United States, whose weapons are actively used in many parts of the world, bringing only disaster and hardship to many peoples. Given the difficulty and futility of these negotiations, their organisers have already stated that they will last at least 10 days and may possibly be extended indefinitely. Still, it is necessary to take into account that fewer and fewer countries are listening to the opinion of the declining US hegemon.
Many experts and diplomats point out that the UN could make a worthy contribution to resolving the bloody conflict. This international organisation has professionals with vast experience in conflicts in various countries and one should not leave everything at the mercy of the US, whose special envoy Tom Perriello does not have enough experience and, apart from loud phrases, has not yet shown anything. No sooner had the negotiations begun than he declared that they were ‘successful’. Apparently, the opinion of an experienced politician, Sudanese Finance Minister Gibril Ibrahim, should be trusted more here, who expressed a different opinion: “The government, of the same ilk, will not accept mediation imposed by force and will not be a party to negotiations aimed at legalising the criminal militia’s occupation of civilian facilities and preserving its place in the political and security scene in the future”.
As the conflict rages on, the risk of a regional spread is growing, threatening to spill over into neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia, South Sudan, Chad, Libya and the Central African Republic. The geopolitical consequences of this could be enormous, as illicit flows of narcotics, weapons and militants destabilise the already unstable African continent. El Fasher, a densely populated stronghold of the Sudanese Armed Forces in Darfur, is an example of the potentially severe consequences of the conflict. As the Rapid Support Forces move towards the city of almost 3 million people, numerous casualties, widespread atrocities, including gender-based violence, torture and mass killings are expected.
Across the country, civilians are caught in the crossfire and face relentless bloodshed and hardship. Attempts to provide assistance are thwarted by embargoes on both sides. The situation is appalling. Experts confirm that both sides constantly commit war crimes, and the RSF and allied militias are also accused of carrying out ethnic cleansing.
The latest reported crime on Sudanese soil is that paramilitary militants killed at least 80 people in an attack on a village while their delegates were in Switzerland negotiating how to end the country’s 16-month civil war. Witnesses reported that the RSF initially encountered resistance from residents of the Jalgini village in Sennar State. Then they opened fire, set houses ablaze and killed many people, whose bodies were scattered on the streets.
Unsuccessful attempts of peacekeepers
Unfortunately, the international community’s response to the crisis has so far been worse than inadequate, mainly due to other global conflicts and rising tensions elsewhere. The West, led by the US, is calmly looking on at everything that is happening and attempts by neighbouring and Arab countries to resume peace talks have so far consistently failed.
This reflects the complex and entrenched nature of the conflict. The Biden administration’s policy towards Africa has been repeatedly criticised due to a lack of understanding of African reality, gross mistakes and miscalculations. For example, the misunderstanding of the civil war as just a local conflict while ignoring its potential to escalate into an extraterritorial clash between rivals, which, according to many experts, contributed to the unfolding crisis. In addition to the fighting, Sudan’s geographical and strategic importance has attracted many other participants to the peacekeeping arena. In addition to the US and Saudi Arabia, neighbouring countries, regional organisations and other world powers continue to mediate. The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, Arab League, African Union and United Nations are part of the structures involved. However, these peace efforts have allowed the warring factions to use a variety of initiatives to buy time, escalate the fighting and exacerbate the suffering of the civilian population.
The biggest obstacle remains the lack of differentiation between efforts bona fide in search of peace and strategic games pursuing geopolitical advantages between rival powers. As a result, instead of a single coordinated and comprehensive peace process, there is now a mess that makes any efforts unnecessary at best and counterproductive at worst.
This uncoordinated flow of peace processes has allowed the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces to choose between initiatives, depending on whether they seek to prosecute the egregious acts committed by another group or not, acts which range from blocking humanitarian aid to committing war crimes. Despite repeated international warnings and sanctions, the thirst for military advantage continues to outweigh the desire for peace. Neither side is ready to make any grandiose deals in the interests of peace or even agree to a temporary cease-fire that will freeze the brutal conflict and allow for more sophisticated diplomacy while the weapons cool down.
The sad future of Sudan as a single state
In the absence of a credible, realistic and widely accepted peace process, Sudan risks repeating Libya’s fragmented political future or becoming a permanently failed state like Somalia. If the last few years of UN mediation in Libya have taught the international community anything, it is that waiting for both sides in the struggle to reach an impasse and then searching for deals with the elite from among the unelected and unaccountable mass will only lead to the creation of a new ruling class that is as disconnected from society as the current belligerents.
Therefore, if Sudan wants to find peace and preserve it, the public must also have a strong voice in the adoption of any resolution. Failure to ensure this will only lead to serious consequences that will go far beyond the borders of Sudan. Recent history is replete with examples of how conflicts can easily transcend borders, as evidenced by how the unrest in Libya (provoked by the West) has affected the entire Sahel region and how the inconclusive war against Daesh* (*banned on the territory of the Russian Federation) has led to splinter groups becoming active and capable of destabilising the situation in parts of Western, Central and Southern Africa.
With a population of approximately 50 million, Sudan poses an even greater risk. The flow of refugees, fighters and weapons can destroy fragile states across Africa and beyond. Such instability would seriously hamper efforts to counter extremism, as the country likely serves as a haven for terrorist groups – as was the case with Al-Qa’eda* (*banned in the territory of the Russian Federation) in the 1990s. As the civil war in Sudan continues, the grim reality is that every failed peace initiative not only prolongs the conflict, but also exacerbates the suffering of millions of civilians. The world can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to this crisis or allow the West and other avaricious actors to undermine concerted efforts to establish peace and restore stability.
In contrast to the Western self-serving position, Russia has been advocating for an immediate ceasefire and the establishment of a national dialogue since the very beginning of the conflict. At a meeting with Acting Sudanese Foreign Minister Hussein Awad Ali, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov stated: “During the conversation, the main focus was on the development of the situation in Sudan, with an emphasis on the need for an early settlement of the military-political crisis in that country. At the same time, the Russian side reaffirmed its principled position in support of an immediate ceasefire and the establishment of a sustainable national dialogue in the interests of ensuring the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Sudan”.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
