The power dynamics across Asia and Africa are highly complex and varied. In some regions totalitarian leaders and autocrats maintain a firm grip on power, while in others dictators exert force to expand the ambit of their interests. One such instance arose in Sudan, where the fall of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir ended a transitional government with coup leader General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan assuming charge of the state as a de facto ruler. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo – generally known by the name Hemedti – has worked alongside the Sudanese army to help keep the military in power.
Following Bashir’s ousting, the political transition was supposed to result in elections by the end of 2023, with Burhan promising a transition to civilian rule. But it appears that neither Burhan nor Hemedti intended to relinquish power. Moreover, they are locked in a power struggle which caused the breakout of Civil War on April 15, 2023. Since then, members of the RSF and the Sudanese army have engaged in gunfights in the capital, Khartoum, as well as elsewhere in the country. Over the course of three days, the violence had spiraled.
Assessing the narratives and on-ground realities, one can assert that the conflict centers on a power struggle between two rival factions: the Sudanese army and the RSF paramilitary group. While exchanging narratives with fellow journalists from the region, I was informed that ‘it’s more than an ideological factor; the saga spins around vested power.’ This cannot be framed as a left-wing versus right-wing thing or about warring political parties. Nor is this a geo-religious conflict – like the territorial conflict in the Indo-Pak region. Some fellows, like Rezwan from Global Voices, are of the view that what is happening in Sudan is a battle between two men who are desperate not to be ejected from the corridors of power by means of a transition to an elected government.
The ongoing situation in Sudan underscores the devastating consequences of political turmoil, bloodshed, and global negligence. Leading global actors have too little interest in the region, leaving millions of Sudanese people in the grip of a humanitarian crisis that is deteriorating by the day. This lack of continuous international focus is terrible and deeply shameful. Sudan's suffering is the product of not only domestic conflict but an international system that regularly ignores crises lacking strong geopolitical or economic weight.
Amnesty International and the United Nations have published reports detailing widespread atrocities such as indiscriminate bombardment, mass executions, sexual violence, and the destruction of essential infrastructure. The collapse of public services has left much of the country in darkness, with hospitals overburdened and food supplies perilously low. Civilians caught in the crossfire suffer continual risks to their lives and receive little to no protection from either warring side. The targeted violence against civilians, particularly women and children, demonstrates a blatant disdain for international humanitarian law and human rights.
The forces amplifying civilian suffering in Sudan are multi-layered. The fractured power dynamics between The SAF and RSF have plunged cities like Khartoum into violent conflict, eventually turning them into war zones. The breakdown of governance has also emboldened militia groups, some of which have been accused of committing ethnic cleansing, particularly in the Darfur region. With no unified national authority, Sudan is a patchwork of lawless zones where armed groups freely terrorize civilians without fear of reprisal. Economic collapse is another critical factor. Even before the recent escalation, Sudan’s economy was already in shambles due to decades of corruption, mismanagement, and sanctions. The current conflict has exacerbated this driving inflation to astronomical levels and causing widespread food insecurity. The most pressing issue at the moment is that an estimated 25.6 million people — more than half of Sudan's pre-war population — are now at risk of acute hunger, and in some regions, even famine, according to the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) estimates.
Despite massive human suffering, the international community's response has been tepid at best. Despite repeated calls for ceasefires and peace talks, the warring sides have been under little or no compulsion to engage in serious conversation. The African Union (AU), which could have played an essential role in mediating the situation, has been mostly ineffectual, handicapped by internal rivalries and limited influence over Sudan's military leaders. While present in the shape of peacekeeping troops and humanitarian relief groups, the United Nations has failed to mobilize the collective effort required to put an end to the carnage. One cannot ignore the role of global apathy in this situation. Western governments have been distracted by other geopolitical worries, such as the war in Ukraine or tensions in Taiwan. There is a miserable truth behind this neglect: Sudan lacks the strategic importance or economic worth to motivate international stakeholders to intervene decisively. It is a battle without oil, crucial trade routes, or the global stakes that would compel real international involvement.
As a budding journalist, I remember a lesson from the training at “The European Journalism Institute” at an Anglo-American University that the media portrays what boosts its ratings and viewership rather than reflecting reality. I believe this stands true when it comes to Sudan. While other crises command attention, Sudan's misery has been pushed to the outskirts. Coverage has been irregular and cursory, with a focus on the political intrigues of generals rather than the plight of the millions of civilians trapped in this conflict. Without consistent media attention, there is no pressure on world leaders to act and no public indignation to motivate action. This indifference not only exacerbates the humanitarian problem but also establishes a dangerous precedent.
A coalition of civilian groups in the country has urged for an immediate halt to the violence, as have the United States and other international observers, but with both camps dug in, this seems improbable. Similarly, free and fair elections in Sudan are a long way off. There does not appear to be an easy path to a short-term solution, and what makes it more difficult is that you have two powerful men, both with a military at their disposal, fighting each other for power that neither looks willing to give up. The risk is that the violence may intensify and destabilize the region, threatening Sudan's relations with its neighbors. Chad, which borders Sudan on the west, has already blocked its borders with Sudan. The longer the world turns a blind eye to Sudan, the more emboldened other authoritarian regimes become, knowing that their own abuses might also escape scrutiny. It reveals the deep inequalities in the international order, where crises in less geopolitically significant regions can fester and destroy lives without eliciting meaningful global intervention.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Steve Evans
Licence. No image changes made.
Comments