Sudan is on the verge of a protracted civil war with unprecedented negative implication to the region’s geopolitical, trading and security interests. The African Union (AU) and Regional Mechanism’s efforts to address the conflict seems to be invisible and limited. AU’s greatest critique in such situations has been substantially making their influence felt and taking meaningful actions.
It should be noted that both Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and Mohammad Hamdan Dagalo – the two protagonists in the Sudan’s conflict worked together to oust Sudanese ex- president Omar Al-Bashir in 2019 and played an important role in the military coup in 2021.
Sudan had remained largely stable under former President Bashir; notwithstanding its internal contradiction and challenges. Now that the former President is ousted, the country is in turmoil, with possibility of recovery to normalcy over several years. The conflict which began since April 15 have now seen hundreds of lives lost, thousands wounded, properties destroyed and has caused widespread misery to the Sudanese population.
It’s alleged that this tension between the two parties started during the negotiations to integrate Rapid Support Forces (RSF) into the country’s military led by Al-Burhan as a plan to restore civilian rule. The misunderstanding seems to be deeper than the issue of who should be the subordinate and superior as both sides want to be superior in the hierarchy and power structure of Khartoum. The issue of power struggle could be best viewed from the perspective of who should be in control or (mis) use of the country’s wealth and resources.
During the Darfur conflicts in 2000’s Mohammad Hamdan Dagalo was one of the fiercest war generals and his Janjaweed militias allegedly committed mass atrocities in the region but ex-President, Bashir formalized the group into paramilitary forces and the troops were integrated into the country’s intelligence service in 2013. This was Bashir’s attempt to accommodate political opponents and perhaps, restore lasting peace and democratize the country.
It seems, the current two war generals are used to conflicts and are not interested in reaping the peace dividends. Perhaps, war is a general means – to them and their followers, an opportunity for amassing illicit wealth, which is often not easily done under the public accountability watch in government. Most likely, the parties are not sharing the spoils of their agreement as each party had anticipated, who knows. This is a sad reality, because it comes at the expense of loss of lives while minority groups of the warring factions keep benefiting from the effects and spoils of the conflict.
The examples of how warlords in countries like Liberia, Sierra-Leone, Sudan itself and other countries benefited from spoils of war should teach the international community a lesson. Unfortunately, international actors – including principals, businesses and networks are complicit in this grand scheme of things. Amidst loss of lives, destruction of properties, misery and abject poverty, these acts should never be tolerated in the 21st Century.
The role of international actors in perpetuating the conflict, to achieve their interests cannot be under estimated, it’s been proven, tested and documented – again, a very sad reality of how the universe operates. Nevertheless, there is need for widespread international condemnation, including imposing sanctions against warring factions. Moreover, it’s possible that the United Nations (UN) can consider invoking the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principles to salvage the situation. However, R2P may not be the best and most effective option at this time, but a probable alternative. This if pursued, should be done differently to avoid the Libya experience but allowing African Union and regional mechanisms to take leadership.
This conflict will have short term and long-term effects on Sudan’s economy and neighboring countries. Foreign investments and businesses will leave the country in turmoil. The challenge and cost of rebuilding the state of Sudan will be colossal. Regional trade, geopolitics and security interests will be in jeopardy.
The East African Community (EAC) should condemn the conflicts to the highest level – after all, it’s not only in their best geopolitical, trading and business interests, but a moral imperative to mitigate further bloodshed at their doorsteps. EAC in consultation with the AU should create mechanisms for deploying standby forces in the region, forge a peaceful means through faster negotiation and diplomatic tact to avoid further degeneration.
Jastine Otim – Is a Student of International Affairs and currently Researching with the Centre for Multilateral Affairs in Kampala, Uganda
