Examining Sudan’s Humanitarian Crisis And The Failing Mediation – The Organization for World Peace

Since April 2023, Sudan has been in a civil war between the country’s two main military groups: the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary group Rapid Support Forces. Led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the Sudanese Armed Forces (S.A.F.) are the official state military of the Republic of Sudan, and were the national army for former dictator Omar al-Bashir. During his reign, small militias formed in different regions of Sudan; one of these would eventually become the Rapid Support Forces (R.S.F.). Originally an Arab tribal militia complicit with Bashir’s reign, the R.S.F. is a paramilitary group led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, or “Hemedti,” who worked alongside the S.A.F. for years before the civil war.

In 2019, both groups successfully overthrew the former leader Bashir. With assistance from several international countries, a new government system was formed in Sudan. The goal was to share power between military and civilian councils; however, in 2021, Burhan and Hemedti staged a coup against the then-prime minister, leaving both men in control of Sudan. Tensions rose between military groups as both leaders refused to give up power to the other. Warfare began on April 15, 2023, after the S.A.F. became concerned about the R.S.F. redeploying around Sudan. Fighting spread across Darfur, Khartoum, and much of central and western Sudan.

The civil war and the years leading up to it have caused catastrophic damage to the country and its people. Millions have been displaced, hospitals and infrastructure have been destroyed, and food security has become unstable for thousands. The humanitarian crisis resulted in more than 150,000 people being killed, and sexual violence against civilians becoming widespread across the nation.

National and international responses to this crisis largely failed. Multiple regional groups and other countries, including the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the African Union, repeatedly tried to mediate the civil war. These attempts were unsuccessful, as they focus too much on short-term diplomacy and do not properly address long-term peace. While efforts remain ongoing, at least a dozen previous ceasefire attempts have failed, likely because they heavily focused on stopping violence without solving the complex political and military issues that are at the root of this conflict. Most ceasefire attempts were presented as temporary solutions, such as humanitarian pauses and de-escalation attempts, and not meaningful long-term settlements. While they are necessary, these temporary resolutions ultimately allowed for conflict to continue.

Another major reason that this conflict continues is that the S.A.F. and the R.S.F. each believe that winning this civil war will create a better outcome for them than compromising peacefully. As long as both military groups view victory as a realistic outcome, diplomatic negotiations become less likely. Unfortunately, compromising may be perceived as a weakness or defeat, as each side pursues more territorial control and political power in Sudan.

This persistent conflict has demonstrated how external diplomatic pressure and temporary ceasefires alone are not enough to address the humanitarian crisis occurring. Moving forward, lasting peace is more likely to prevail when civilian populations, long-term reconstruction, and regional cooperation are prioritised. More often than not, military leaders are heavily focused on in peace talks, while the civilians that live with the consequences are largely overlooked. Civilian populations need to be addressed as much and as often as military groups are when negotiations and ceasefires are attempted. This can be accomplished by working with local leaders and councils in the nation. Countries and international organizations need to cooperate with these groups, as affected populations must get much-needed relief and support. Ending violence should not be the only goal when attempting peace agreements. Re-establishing hospitals, businesses, and trustworthy civilian governments is essential to Sudan. Civilian considerations must be addressed by both outside nations and Sudan in any future ceasefires and negotiations.

Additionally, infrastructure reconstruction must be heavily prioritised for Sudan moving forward. This cannot be accomplished immediately, so protected recovery zones must be established and scattered throughout the country to allow for proper rebuilding. These zones should be non-conflict areas where essential infrastructure and services can be re-established. Leaders should push to restore reliable electricity, reopen hospitals and schools, and create markets and farms. International forces must work with local groups to maintain peace and provide protection for these areas. Creating functional zones shows the civilian population that infrastructure improvement is possible and can happen quickly. However, this should only be the start of the rebuilding process. Once established, these areas can expand and work with local groups and communities to establish the further reconstruction that is necessary for each specific area. This will hopefully create a pathway for a more stable civilian population.

Finally, regional accountability and incentives could create motivation for peace and reconstruction while highlighting national unification. International organizations and outside nations should work together to create standards for regions in Sudan. The standards would track verifiable metrics for each region’s attempts at peace, rebuilding, and providing humanitarian access for civilians, and would establish clear and meaningful benefits for cooperation. Financial and reconstruction assistance would be given to those regions that attempt to comply. This does not mean that the areas that are not complying are forgotten or punished, as humanitarian aid is still needed there. However, reconstruction plans, economic assistance, and larger-scale rebuilding should be prioritised in regions that demonstrate commitments to civilian protection. This should encourage each region to pursue meaningful and lasting peace and restoration.

Although Sudan is far too large and separated for one sweeping solution, these implementations can be beneficial in solving many problems of the civil war.