A Comprehensive Analysis of the Political and Military Crisis in Sudan
A Comprehensive Analysis of the Political and Military Crisis in Sudan
Executive Summary
Sudan's journey since its independence in 1956 has been marred by protracted conflicts, primarily between the north and south, culminating in the secession of South Sudan in 2011. However, unresolved issues persisted, continuing to destabilize both nations. The current crisis, erupting in April 2023, stems from a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), former allies who turned against each other following a series of political transitions and military interventions. The conflict has evolved into a complex and devastating situation characterized by territorial shifts, the emergence of a parallel government, the fragmentation of civilian political actors, and a severe humanitarian crisis. The broader implications of this conflict extend to the risk of Sudan's fragmentation, regional spillover effects, and the involvement of various foreign actors. Evaluating potential pathways to peace requires considering historical parallels and the risks of further escalation, drawing lessons from similar conflicts in the region.
Introduction: Contextualizing the Crisis in Sudan
The Republic of Sudan, situated in the strategically vital Horn of Africa and bordering the Red Sea, is currently engulfed in a deeply concerning and multifaceted crisis. Protracted conflict has been a recurring feature of its post-independence history, and the eruption of intense fighting in April 2023 between the nation's primary military factions has precipitated a humanitarian catastrophe and amplified risks of regional destabilization. Understanding the intricate layers of this crisis, from its historical roots to its contemporary manifestations and potential future trajectories, is of paramount importance for policymakers, humanitarian organizations, and all stakeholders seeking to comprehend and potentially address this complex situation. This report aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the political and military problems in Sudan, examining the historical context, the immediate causes of the current conflict, its present state, broader implications, and possible pathways forward.
Historical Overview: Seeds of Conflict (1956-2011)
Sudan achieved its independence on January 1, 1956, marking the end of the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, a joint British and Egyptian colonial administration that had governed the region for the first half of the twentieth century. However, this transition to sovereignty was not accompanied by a unified national vision. The foundational constitution failed to adequately address the fundamental question of whether Sudan should adopt a secular or Islamist state, nor did it establish a system of national governance that was inclusive of the country's diverse population and protective of minority rights. This lack of consensus on national identity and governance laid a critical foundation for future conflict. Furthermore, during the colonial era, the British administration had treated the northern and southern regions of Sudan as distinct entities. This separate administration exacerbated existing demographic differences between the predominantly Arab and Muslim north and the more culturally, religiously, and linguistically diverse south, where Christianity and animism were prevalent. Critically, the colonial government directed the majority of its investment towards the Arab-dominated regions of the north, leaving the south chronically underdeveloped in terms of education, healthcare, and basic infrastructure. Consequently, the Arabic-speaking and Arab elite in Khartoum consolidated power after independence, often justifying their dominance through an ideology that marginalized populations from the nation's more diverse regions outside the capital, particularly the south. This concentration of political and economic power in the north along ethnic and linguistic lines fostered a sense of exclusion and grievance in the south.
The simmering tensions between the north and south erupted into the First Sudanese Civil War in 1955, just months before Sudan's official independence. This conflict was largely prompted by southerners who had been promised, and subsequently denied, the right to govern themselves. The southern population, predominantly Christian and animist, fought against rule by the north and the imposition of Arabic language and culture. The immediate outbreak of this war, even prior to formal independence, underscores the deeply entrenched nature of the north-south divide and the failure to address the aspirations of the south for greater autonomy. While the Addis Ababa Agreement in 1972 brought an end to the first civil war and established the Southern Sudan Autonomous Region , it ultimately failed to completely resolve the underlying tensions and addressed only some of the fundamental issues raised by southern Sudan. This highlights a recurring pattern in Sudan's history: peace agreements, while offering temporary respites from violence, often fall short of achieving lasting resolution if core issues of power-sharing, resource allocation, and identity are not adequately addressed. The Second Sudanese Civil War ignited in 1983 when then-President Gaafar Nimeiry declared all of Sudan an Islamic state and revoked the autonomy of the majority-Christian south. This imposition of Islamic law across the entire country, a move intended to consolidate power and appease critics in the north, reignited the conflict, demonstrating the critical significance of religious and cultural differences as a major fault line in Sudanese society. In response, southerners mobilized around the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA), led by Dr. John Garang. Initially, the SPLA campaigned for a unified Sudan transformed into a multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious, and multi-ethnic state. However, the continued marginalization and the intensity of the conflict led the SPLA to eventually embrace the concept of self-determination for South Sudan. This evolution in the SPLA's objectives, from seeking unity to demanding independence, reflects the growing disillusionment within the south regarding the possibility of achieving equitable power-sharing within a united Sudan.
The signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005 marked a significant turning point, paving the way for a referendum in which the citizens of South Sudan would decide whether to remain part of Sudan or secede. This agreement, mediated by international actors and acknowledging the right to self-determination, was crucial in achieving a peaceful, albeit ultimately temporary, resolution to the decades-long civil war. On July 9, 2011, following an overwhelming vote in favor of separation in the January 2011 referendum, South Sudan officially gained its independence. The near-unanimous vote for independence, with approximately 99% of South Sudanese voting to secede, underscored the deep and long-held desire of the South Sudanese people for self-determination after enduring decades of conflict and marginalization. However, the secession of South Sudan did not resolve all the outstanding issues between the two nations. Several critical matters remained contentious, including border disputes, particularly concerning the oil-rich Abyei region and the 14-Mile Area. The failure to definitively demarcate these borders and resolve the status of these areas created persistent flashpoints for renewed conflict and hindered the establishment of stable and cooperative relations between Sudan and South Sudan. Furthermore, the allocation of resources, especially the sharing of revenues from oil, which is predominantly located in South Sudan but transported through pipelines in Sudan, proved to be a major source of friction. The economic dependence of both countries on oil, coupled with disagreements over revenue sharing and control of oil-rich regions, not only fueled political tensions but also led to direct military confrontations, such as the Heglig Crisis in 2012. Finally, underlying ethnic tensions between various communities persisted and were, in some instances, exacerbated by the division of the country. These tensions contributed to inter-communal violence in both Sudan and the newly independent South Sudan, indicating that the formal separation did not eliminate the deep-seated ethnic and tribal divisions that had long fueled conflict in the region.
The Path to the Current Conflict (2011-April 2023)
The post-secession period in Sudan was largely defined by the enduring legacy of Omar al-Bashir, who had ruled the country with an iron fist since seizing power in a 1989 coup. His regime, which lasted until 2019, was characterized by authoritarian rule, the strict enforcement of Sharia law, the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, and the brutal conflict in the Darfur region, which the International Criminal Court (ICC) later condemned as genocide. Bashir's long and repressive rule created deep societal divisions and grievances, particularly in marginalized regions like Darfur, which continued to simmer even after his removal. In December 2018, widespread mass protests erupted across Sudan, initially triggered by severe economic hardship and rising prices for basic commodities like bread. These protests quickly evolved into broader demands for an end to Bashir's authoritarian rule and a transition to democratic governance. After months of sustained demonstrations, the military, under the leadership of General Ahmed Awad Ibn Auf, finally removed Bashir from power in a coup d'état on April 11, 2019. While Bashir's ouster sparked initial optimism for a democratic transition in Sudan, the continued involvement of the military in the subsequent political process ultimately laid the groundwork for the current conflict.
Following Bashir's removal, a fragile civilian-military transitional government was established, tasked with steering the country towards democratic elections. However, this transitional arrangement was fraught with numerous challenges and internal divisions, primarily stemming from the inherent power imbalance between the civilian and military components. The military leadership, deeply entrenched in Sudanese politics and the economy, exhibited a clear reluctance to cede ultimate control to civilian authorities. This unstable political environment reached a breaking point on October 25, 2021, when the military, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Commander-in-Chief of the SAF, staged a coup, dissolving the civilian-led government and effectively derailing the already faltering democratic transition. This military intervention was met with widespread protests from Sudanese citizens who had hoped for a genuine transition to democracy. The coup also drew strong condemnation from the international community, which had been supporting the democratic transition process. The 2021 military coup not only represented a significant setback for democratic aspirations in Sudan but also fundamentally altered the political landscape, ultimately paving the way for the direct confrontation between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) that erupted in April 2023.
The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), now bitter adversaries, had previously acted in concert to carry out the April 2019 coup that led to the removal of Omar al-Bashir. However, this initial alliance was largely opportunistic, driven by a shared desire to oust Bashir, and lacked a solid foundation of common long-term objectives. The RSF, under the leadership of Mohamed Hamdan "Hemedti" Dagalo, had grown significantly in power and wealth during Bashir's rule. Originating from the Janjaweed militias that were notorious for their brutal role in the Darfur conflict, the RSF evolved into a formidable paramilitary force with substantial financial resources, largely derived from Hemedti's control over lucrative gold mines in Darfur. Hemedti's accumulation of both military power and economic resources created a parallel military structure that increasingly rivaled the authority and capabilities of the traditional Sudanese Armed Forces, making a future power struggle almost inevitable. Following the 2021 military coup, efforts to restore a civilian-led transition included proposals for the eventual integration of the RSF into the SAF under civilian oversight. However, disagreements over the terms and timeline of this integration became a major point of contention between General al-Burhan and General Dagalo. The issue of security sector reform, particularly the integration of the RSF, ultimately proved to be the breaking point in the uneasy alliance between the two forces, as both the SAF and the RSF sought to preserve their autonomy and maintain their respective spheres of influence. In the weeks leading up to the outbreak of hostilities, there were reports of uncoordinated redeployments of RSF units, particularly in the capital Khartoum, which were perceived by the SAF as a direct threat to their control and critical infrastructure. These troop movements further heightened the already tense atmosphere and contributed to the escalating sense of confrontation that ultimately triggered the violent clashes of April 2023.
The Ongoing Conflict: A Deep Dive (April 2023 - Present)
The simmering tensions between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) finally erupted into open conflict on April 15, 2023, in the capital city of Khartoum. Both sides promptly accused the other of initiating the hostilities, marking the beginning of a violent power struggle that quickly spread beyond Khartoum to encompass other regions of Sudan, including Darfur, Kordofan, and Gezira. This rapid geographic expansion of the conflict indicated a nationwide struggle for dominance, involving not only the SAF and RSF but also various local militias and potentially reflecting deep-seated regional grievances. Since the conflict's onset, numerous ceasefires have been declared through the mediation efforts of regional and international actors; however, these truces have largely failed to hold, underscoring the deep mistrust and competing interests of the warring parties.
Recent developments suggest a shift in the military dynamics of the conflict. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have reportedly made significant territorial gains, particularly in the capital Khartoum, where they have retaken key strategic sites including the Presidential Palace and Khartoum International Airport. These gains, especially in the symbolic and strategically important capital, represent a notable shift in the military balance of power and could potentially bolster the SAF's claim as the legitimate governing authority in Sudan. Beyond Khartoum, the SAF has also reported halting the RSF's prolonged siege of Obeid in the South-Central Region and successfully recapturing Wad Madani, the capital of Gezira State, a strategically important agricultural region. These territorial gains outside of the capital further suggest a broader shift in the conflict's dynamics, potentially weakening the RSF's overall control and influence. The SAF's overall military strategy appears to be focused on regaining control of key urban centers and vital infrastructure across the country. By securing these strategic locations, the SAF aims to consolidate its authority, disrupt RSF supply lines, and potentially create the conditions for establishing a more centralized government.
In response to the ongoing conflict and the SAF's recent gains, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and their allied groups have taken steps to establish a parallel government in the territories under their control. This effort culminated in the signing of a political charter in Nairobi in February 2025, outlining the framework for this alternative administration. The formation of a parallel government represents a significant move towards a potential de facto division of Sudan, a scenario that increasingly resembles the protracted and unresolved conflict in Libya, where two rival administrations claim legitimacy. While the RSF's control in areas like Khartoum appears to be weakening in the face of SAF offensives , the paramilitary force maintains significant control over the Darfur region in western Sudan, holding four of the five states within this sprawling and historically volatile area. Darfur remains a crucial stronghold for the RSF, providing them with access to vital resources, including the region's rich gold deposits, which are a key asset in sustaining their war efforts, as well as a strategic base of operations.
The already complex political landscape of Sudan has been further complicated by the fragmentation of civilian political coalitions. The Taqaddum (Progress) coalition, initially formed as a broad-based anti-war movement seeking an end to the conflict between the SAF and RSF, has experienced a significant split. This fragmentation arose primarily over the contentious issue of whether to engage with the parallel government being established by the RSF. Some factions within Taqaddum have opted to align themselves with the RSF and participate in their parallel administration, while others have chosen to remain neutral or have gravitated towards supporting the SAF. This division within the largest anti-war civilian coalition underscores the deeply polarized nature of the conflict and the immense difficulty in forging a unified civilian front capable of mediating a resolution. The fragmentation of Taqaddum further complicates the prospects for a cohesive and inclusive civilian-led peace process and risks deepening the existing political divisions within Sudanese society.
The ongoing conflict in Sudan has precipitated a catastrophic humanitarian crisis of immense proportions. Millions of Sudanese have been forcibly displaced from their homes, both within the country's borders and as refugees in neighboring nations. The sheer scale of this displacement ranks among the worst humanitarian crises globally, highlighting the devastating human cost of the conflict and the urgent need for substantial and sustained humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, famine has been officially declared in several parts of Sudan, particularly within the Darfur region, with millions more people across the country facing acute and life-threatening levels of food insecurity. This widespread famine indicates a severe disruption of agricultural production and essential supply chains, a situation exacerbated by the ongoing conflict and significant obstacles to humanitarian access. Tragically, the conflict has also been marked by numerous and credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. These alleged atrocities include mass killings of civilians based on their ethnicity, widespread use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, and acts of ethnic cleansing, particularly in the Darfur region. The prevalence of these reports underscores the extreme brutality of the conflict and the urgent imperative for accountability and justice for the victims of these heinous acts.
Broader Implications and Regional Dynamics
The protracted and intensifying conflict in Sudan carries significant broader implications, most notably the increasing threat of the country's fragmentation into multiple distinct entities. The ongoing fighting between the SAF and RSF, coupled with the RSF's establishment of a parallel government, has substantially heightened the risk of Sudan's de facto or even formal division. The consolidation of rival administrations, one based in Port Sudan under SAF control and another potentially in Darfur under RSF influence, along with the continued armed conflict across various regions, raises serious concerns about the future territorial integrity of Sudan. The historical precedent of South Sudan's secession in 2011, following decades of similar patterns of marginalization and conflict, offers stark lessons about the potential for long-term national division when such deep-seated grievances remain unaddressed. However, the post-independence experience of South Sudan, which has been marred by its own devastating civil war, serves as a critical reminder that secession alone does not guarantee an end to conflict or the establishment of lasting peace and stability. Any potential fragmentation of Sudan could therefore lead to further internal conflicts within the newly formed entities if fundamental issues of governance, equitable resource sharing, and inter-ethnic relations are not effectively and inclusively managed.
The ongoing conflict in Sudan is also generating significant regional spillover effects, particularly impacting neighboring countries like South Sudan and Chad. The intense fighting has forced hundreds of thousands of Sudanese civilians to flee their homes and seek refuge in these already fragile states, placing a significant strain on their limited resources and potentially exacerbating existing social, economic, and political vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the conflict in Sudan has directly impacted the already precarious economic situation in South Sudan. South Sudan relies heavily on oil exports for its government revenue, and the primary pipelines for transporting this oil run through Sudanese territory to Port Sudan on the Red Sea. Disruptions to these pipelines due to the fighting in Sudan have severely curtailed South Sudan's oil exports, further damaging its already fragile economy and hindering its recovery from its own internal conflicts. There have also been persistent allegations of cross-border support and the involvement of armed groups from neighboring countries in the Sudanese conflict, further complicating the regional security landscape. Such external involvement of armed actors can escalate the intensity and prolong the duration of the conflict, while also contributing to broader regional instability by potentially drawing in other states and non-state actors.
The conflict in Sudan has become a focal point for the involvement and influence of various foreign actors, each with their own strategic and economic interests in the region. Regional powers such as Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Chad, and South Sudan, as well as international actors including Russia, Turkey, Iran, and the United States, have all been implicated in supporting either the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) or the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This external interference, particularly through the provision of arms, military equipment, and financial support, has been widely criticized for exacerbating the conflict and undermining efforts aimed at achieving a peaceful resolution. The United Arab Emirates has been particularly implicated in providing support to the RSF, allegedly motivated in part by its interests in Sudanese gold, while Egypt has historically maintained close ties with and supported the SAF. The divergent interests and support provided by these key regional actors significantly complicate mediation efforts and risk prolonging the conflict as each side believes it can achieve its objectives through continued fighting. Furthermore, global powers like Russia and Turkey have also demonstrated strategic interests in Sudan, including potential access to naval bases on the Red Sea coast and control over valuable resources such as gold. The involvement of these global actors, driven by their own geopolitical ambitions, introduces additional layers of complexity to the conflict and further hinders prospects for a swift and peaceful resolution.
Potential Pathways and Future Scenarios
Examining historical parallels, particularly the secession of South Sudan, offers valuable insights into the potential future trajectories of the current crisis in Sudan. The long and arduous history of marginalization, political exclusion, and armed conflict in South Sudan, ultimately culminating in its independence, underscores the possibility of similar outcomes in other regions of Sudan if the underlying grievances and issues of identity and resource allocation are not comprehensively addressed. The successful secession of South Sudan serves as a precedent, demonstrating that prolonged conflict rooted in fundamental questions of identity and resource control can indeed lead to the redrawing of national borders. However, the subsequent descent of South Sudan into its own protracted civil war after independence serves as a critical cautionary tale. This experience highlights that secession alone does not guarantee peace or stability, and any potential fragmentation of Sudan could similarly lead to further internal conflicts within the newly formed entities if critical issues of governance, equitable resource sharing, and inter-ethnic relations are not effectively and inclusively managed from the outset.
Drawing comparisons with contemporary conflicts in the region, the situation in Sudan increasingly resembles the protracted division seen in Libya, where two rival governments, backed by competing armed factions and external powers, have been vying for legitimacy and control over different territories for years. This "Libya scenario" in Sudan would likely entail a prolonged state of division with no clear victor emerging, resulting in a fragmented nation with multiple centers of power, persistent instability, and the continued suffering of the civilian population. There is also a grave risk of Sudan descending into a state of Somalia-like collapse, where the central government loses effective control over vast swathes of the country, leading to its fragmentation along ethnic and regional lines, the proliferation of non-state armed actors, and a protracted period of conflict and humanitarian catastrophe. Such a scenario would not only have devastating consequences for the Sudanese people but would also pose a significant threat to regional security and stability.
Prospects for achieving a sustainable peace through negotiations and a comprehensive ceasefire remain highly uncertain. Numerous attempts at dialogue and temporary truces have failed to yield lasting results, largely due to the deep-seated mistrust between the SAF and RSF leadership, their competing interests and objectives, and the often-unhelpful influence of various external actors who are pursuing their own agendas. Achieving a durable peace will necessitate addressing the fundamental power dynamics within Sudan, ensuring the inclusive participation of all relevant stakeholders, including civilian political actors and marginalized communities, and securing a genuine commitment from external actors to refrain from fueling the conflict through the provision of arms and other forms of support. The recent military gains by the SAF, while potentially strengthening their negotiating position, could also lead to further entrenchment on both sides, making compromise even more difficult to achieve. Even with these gains, the RSF retains significant control in the Darfur region and possesses the capacity to launch counter-offensives, indicating a strong likelihood of a prolonged and bloody conflict. The continued fighting, coupled with the establishment of parallel administrations, suggests that neither the SAF nor the RSF believes it can achieve a decisive military victory in the near future, pointing towards a protracted and devastating war of attrition. Furthermore, the active involvement of numerous ethnic militias with their own localized agendas and the ongoing fragmentation of civilian political coalitions further complicate the prospects for a comprehensive and lasting peace agreement, potentially leading to a more complex and localized conflict that is even more challenging to resolve.
Conclusion: Navigating the Complexities of Sudan's Crisis
The analysis of the current political and military problems in Sudan reveals a deeply entrenched and multifaceted crisis rooted in a long history of north-south conflict, unresolved issues following South Sudan's secession, and a tumultuous period of political transition after the removal of Omar al-Bashir. The ongoing conflict between the SAF and RSF, fueled by a power struggle and exacerbated by external interference, has led to a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, the risk of Sudan's fragmentation, and significant regional spillover effects. The potential pathways forward are fraught with challenges, with historical parallels suggesting the dangers of both national division and prolonged internal conflict. The situation in Sudan increasingly resembles the complex and intractable conflicts in Libya and Somalia, raising serious concerns about the country's future stability and territorial integrity. Achieving lasting peace will require a comprehensive and inclusive approach that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict, involves all relevant Sudanese stakeholders, and ensures a unified and constructive role from regional and international actors. Without such a concerted effort, Sudan risks further descent into fragmentation and prolonged conflict, with devastating consequences for its people and the wider region.
Table 1: Timeline of Key Events in Sudan (1956-Present)
