Sudan’s Civil War: A Conflict in Perpetuity and the Failure of International Diplomacy

After nearly two years of brutal fighting, Sudan’s civil war remains an open wound in the heart of Africa. The recent claim by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) that it has regained control of Khartoum from its rivals, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), may offer a glimmer of hope, but history warns us against premature optimism. Rather than signaling an end to the war, this development could merely mark the transition to another phase of the conflict, in which the battlefront shifts, but the suffering of the Sudanese people remains unchanged.

At the core of this war is a longstanding power struggle over military control and integration. What began as a clash between two factions—the SAF led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the RSF under Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti)—has metastasized into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe. With over 30 million Sudanese in need of aid, more than 14 million displaced, and tens of thousands killed, the war has created one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century. Food shortages, economic collapse, and a near-total breakdown of essential services have pushed Sudan to the brink of state failure.

The Role of External Actors: Fueling the Flames

One of the greatest impediments to peace has been the continuous flow of weapons and financial support from external actors. Sudan has long been awash with arms, ranking second only to Egypt in the region for firearm prevalence. Early on, it became evident that both the SAF and RSF possessed sufficient weaponry to sustain a prolonged conflict. However, foreign interference has deepened Sudan’s turmoil, turning the war into a proxy battleground.

Various external actors—Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—have picked sides, exacerbating internal rivalries. The UAE, in particular, has been accused of supplying the RSF with arms through Chad, prompting the Sudanese army to threaten retaliatory strikes on Chadian airports. Such actions heighten the risk of a regional spillover, threatening the already fragile stability of Sudan’s seven neighboring countries, including South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea.

Despite its rhetoric of peace and reconciliation, the international community’s handling of the Sudanese crisis has been marked by hypocrisy and competing geopolitical interests. While the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) have attempted to mediate peace, their efforts have been systematically undermined by the vested interests of the very nations hosting these talks. Meetings in Jeddah and Switzerland have yielded little progress, as the primary sponsors of these negotiations are themselves deeply entangled in Sudan’s war economy. Philipp Kastner, a peace scholar, aptly notes that genuine peace negotiations are impossible as long as external military support continues to flow unabated to the warring parties.

The Abandonment of Civilians: A Moral and Political Catastrophe

As world powers play their strategic games, Sudanese civilians continue to bear the brunt of the conflict. Brutal attacks, rampant looting, and the deliberate destruction of infrastructure have turned urban centers into warzones. Medical services are virtually non-existent, and famine looms as agricultural production has ground to a halt. The displacement crisis, affecting over 14 million people, is one of the largest in the world today. Yet, global responses have been tepid at best, betraying an alarming indifference to Sudan’s plight.

A September 2024 UN report called for an independent force to protect Sudanese civilians, yet Sudanese officials swiftly rejected this proposal. With the UN-led political mission exiting the country in February 2024, there is now no security apparatus capable of shielding civilians from the horrors of war. Peacekeeping researcher Jenna Russo has advocated for the establishment of “green zones” to offer safe havens for displaced persons and facilitate humanitarian aid. However, without an enforceable international mandate, such measures remain theoretical rather than actionable.

What Must Be Done?

The international community has repeatedly failed Sudan. From the AU to the UN, from Riyadh to Abu Dhabi, the players involved have prioritized their own strategic interests over the lives of millions of Sudanese. Without a fundamental shift in approach, Sudan’s war will persist, with civilians continuing to pay the price.

To break this cycle of violence, a comprehensive, multilateral approach is necessary:

1. End External Interference – A strict arms embargo must be imposed and enforced to prevent further militarization of the conflict.
2. Establish a Neutral Mediation Process – Future peace negotiations must be brokered by impartial actors who are not funding or arming either side.
3. Deploy a Civilian Protection Force – Whether under the AU or a coalition of willing states, an international peacekeeping mission must be reinstated to protect civilians and humanitarian workers.
4. Hold Perpetrators Accountable – War crimes and atrocities must not go unpunished; international justice mechanisms must be activated to ensure accountability.
5. Prioritize Humanitarian Assistance – Immediate funding and logistics must be secured to provide food, medical aid, and shelter to the millions affected.

The tragedy of Sudan is not just a Sudanese problem—it is a global failure. If the world continues to look away, history will remember this as yet another moment when international diplomacy chose expediency over humanity. The time to act is now.