Sudan has found itself enveloped in devastating turmoil, with its civil war now regarded as one of the worst humanitarian crises of the modern era. The catastrophic conflict, which started on April 15, 2023, stems from deep-rooted power struggles between two rival military factions—the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti.
The chaotic showdown is not merely confined to the internal politics of Sudan; it serves as a proxy battleground for regional powers such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, both of whom are backing opposing factions. Egypt supports the SAF, considering it fundamental to stability, particularly because it shares a border with Sudan and faces significant refugee influxes. Meanwhile, the UAE backs the RSF, pursuing its strategic interests linked to gold and land acquisitions within Sudan.
According to reports, the SAF has been heavily equipped by Egypt and Iran, whereas the RSF has often relied on the UAE for military support. This outside interference complicates the humanitarian fallout, which includes alarming figures: as many as 150,000 people have been killed, and over 11 million have been displaced internally and externally, pushing more than three million individuals across borders.
Despite the World’s attention drifting to other conflicts, one cannot ignore the ramifications of Sudan’s plight. The potential for destabilization not only threatens the Horn of Africa but also has far-reaching effects on global security and humanitarian efforts. Should Sudan collapse as a state, experts warn of the ramifications, including increased terrorism, refugee crises overflowing to Europe, and disruption to Red Sea shipping lanes.
The international response to this crisis has been largely muted. Nations face competing priorities, and Sudan, without the geopolitical clout of Ukraine or Iraq, has received scant attention. The United States, previously involved through administrations known for various diplomatic efforts, has pulled back—consumed with its own challenges. The current situation necessitated a recognition of the war crimes committed by both factions, culminating with the Biden administration’s sanctions against Hemedti and Burhan just weeks before leaving office. These sanctions signified accreditations of the violence and human rights violations perpetrated, yet they fell short of initiating serious ceasefire dialogues.
Optimism for peace may be sought through unconventional avenues—namely, the involvement of former President Donald Trump. With unique relationships among key Arab leaders, Trump’s transactional approach offers potential leverage where traditional diplomatic channels have faltered. His previous efforts to normalize relations between Sudan and Israel via the Abraham Accords have marked him as someone who can navigate the fraught political terrain of the Middle East.
The alignment of Egypt and UAE interests, juxtaposed against their competing backing of Sudanese factions, adds layers to the conflict. Egypt, under President el-Sisi, has framed the SAF as the cornerstone of stability and, by extension, regional security as it deals with the effects of mass displacement crossing its southern border. With over 1.2 million Sudanese refugees now finding shelter in Egypt, the stakes are far too existential to ignore.
On the other hand, the UAE has sought to exploit Sudan’s resources for its strategic gain, including ambitious port deals and agricultural investments. This ambition has hit severe roadblocks due to the war, leading to Sudan canceling the critically important Abu Amama port deal and the finance minister’s staunch dismissal of any UAE foothold on the Red Sea after the violent escalation.
A potential resolution may lie with Egypt playing the role of mediator to bridge the gulf between the UAE's objectives and Sudan's demands, particularly if it sees mutual benefits from stabilizing the region. The UAE's narrative of neutrality has been challenged fiercely within the U.S. government, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio pointedly accused them of supporting genocide through the RSF.
The road to peace is fraught with challenges but could potentially rely on fostering genuine dialogue between these regional players. Each side must find value in pursuing diplomacy over continued conflict. The future of Sudan teeters on these delicate international balances. Should foreign countries embrace collaboration rather than competition, it could mark the first step toward renewing stability.
Looking back, it is evident Sudan’s crisis encapsulates more than just local power struggles; it is rooted deeply within the geopolitical strategies of larger nations. The interplay of military, economic, and regional interests not only defines conflict but will also determine the humanitarian future of millions caught amid the devastation.
Now, as the Biden administration dances with domestic priorities, the often-overlooked people of Sudan are left hoping for action—will leadership emerge to address this humanitarian emergency before it’s too late?