On Saturday, April 15, residents of the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, woke up to a deadly fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The conflict, which has since spilt to other towns and cities, has led to the deaths of more than 750 people and left over 5,1000 injured.
According to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), over one million people have been displaced, in addition to a number of rescue workers killed in the crossfire.
Since its former dictator, Omar al-Bashir was ousted in a military coup in October 2021, Sudan has been governed by an interim council of military heads.
Following deep-rooted mutual suspicion and rivalry, SAF and RSF disagreed over an attempt to integrate the latter into the former as part of Sudan’s political transition.
Experts believe that Sudan’s political violence not only exposes the failure and inability of the state to mitigate conflict in a divided society but also raises questions about the meaning of political independence.
They cite how the conflict has reignited unsettled local disputes over land and natural resources in Darfur, Kordofan and Kassala.
“The rise in violence in the Blue Nile state has displaced 97,000 people since July 2022, while a similar situation displaced 21,000 people in West Kordofan in October,” the IRC said.
Unfortunately, although the conflict has attracted the attention of the international community, efforts towards the cessation of hostilities have borne little result, as the violence continues.
One of the reasons for the slow progress, experts say, is that negotiators are focusing exclusively on engagement with the belligerents to resolve the political issues that triggered the conflict in the first place.
The regional and international mediators face the challenge of moving beyond striking a narrow deal between the armed actors, focusing on a cessation of hostilities and a short-term power-sharing agreement.
Already, in addition to deaths, injuries and displacements, the conflict is fast becoming a genocide or war crime against humanity, and both parties are guilty.
Only recently, the Sudan Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the attack on worshipers by the RSF, saying it grossly violated human rights and international law.
The Sudanese Ambassador to Nigeria, Mohamed Abdelmannan, in a statement, said the RSF’s action was an act of terror.
The envoy decried the continuation of what he described as terrorist behavior, infringement of international laws and norms and armed attacks being carried out by the RSF.
Attacks have also been reported in other places protected by international law, including the headquarters of the diplomatic missions in Khartoum and offices of rescue workers.
“The attacks resulted in the looting of these properties, robbery of valuable items including, computers and diplomatic vehicles, official documents, and damage of the premises furniture and belongings.
“These unlawful and criminal acts were carried out in a serious violation of the principal of the international laws and norms that ensure the protection, safety and security of diplomatic missions and staff.
“The ministry denounces the barbaric behavior of the rebel RSF and calls on the international community to condemn it in the strongest terms.
“Such irresponsible acts also call upon the international community to designate the rebel RSF a terrorist group.
“The group should be held responsible for its criminal and terrorist acts, before international, regional and national justice,” Abdelmannan said.
On the other hand, the SAF has also been accused of highhandedness.
Stakeholders point to the flagrant violation of the truce brokered by mediators and the inability to protect all premises and staff of diplomatic missions as indications of the SAF’s culpability.
The SAF has always attributed the failure of the warring parties to adhere to a ceasefire to the RSF’s unprofessional outlook and criminal intentions.
As RSF leader Mohamed Dagalo and Sudan’s de facto leader, Abdel Al- Burhan continue to claim control of key government departments, it is important to note the world can ill-afford another humanitarian crisis.
The conflict is also a distraction from poor governance, environmental crisis, mismanagement of land and natural resources, corruption, and a defective criminal and injustice system bedeviling the country.
The international community would do well to address some of the most pressing challenges Sudan faces, such as a high inflation rate, extremely low foreign reserves and a food crisis.
Sudan imports 80 per cent of its wheat from Russia, thereby making the country particularly vulnerable as the war between Russia and Ukraine intensifies.
Also, a plan to write off $14 billion in debt and cancel $9 billion more was put on hold by financial donors in the wake of the military coup.
These are some of the issues the country’s leaders should be addressing, not a conflict of egos. The sooner peace returned to Sudan the better for all involved.
