Sudan’s Conflict: A Nation on the Brink of Partition
After 19 months of intense conflict, Sudan stands at the crossroads of transformation and potential dissolution. The battle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has evolved from a power struggle into a complex conflict threatening to redraw the nation’s borders. As global attention wavers, the possibility of a protracted partition looms large.
- Advertisement -
Shifting Battle Lines and the Asymmetric War
Recent developments have fundamentally shifted the balance of power. Analyst Kaan Devecioğlu highlights the military advances made by SAF, particularly in reclaiming parts of Khartoum and strategic cities in Kordofan. Nevertheless, the RSF has formed a parallel government in Kenya and controls significant territories stretching across Darfur, demonstrating the asymmetric nature of this conflict. This has resulted in the RSF holding ground power while the SAF holds international legitimacy.
Demirtaş observes that as SAF consolidated its control in strategic regions, the RSF captured el-Fasher, solidifying Darfur under their command, which could become the nexus of a breakaway region.
Preventing Partition
Preserving Sudan’s territorial integrity requires the SAF to rethink its governance and negotiation strategies. Devecioğlu suggests that the army must transition from a sole ruling entity to a security negotiator, fortifying controlled areas and engaging civilians in a credible framework to stave off fragmentation.
Demirtaş stresses the importance of maintaining control over key regions like North and West Kordofan to prevent a de facto partition. He argues that military success could empower the army at negotiation tables, paving the way for a more inclusive political process.
Diplomatic Fragmentation and Global Indifference
As battle lines harden, the diplomatic landscape remains fractured. Major powers such as the U.S. and EU prefer sanctions, while Russia and China view the conflict through a geopolitical lens, resulting in a lack of decisive United Nations Security Council action. Regional allegiances are similarly divided, resulting in diplomatic paralysis.
Both analysts note an urgent need for humanitarian action, especially amid ethnic violence and famine threats in Darfur.
Türkiye’s Role as a Neutral Facilitator
Türkiye’s non-colonial history and extensive network of diplomatic relationships position it as a credible facilitator in Sudan’s crisis. Ankara’s engagement with both regional and global actors offers a unique diplomatic reach that could bridge divides while ensuring neutrality.
Global Silence and the Shadow of Past Failures
Despite documented atrocities in regions like el-Fasher, international responses have been tepid. Devecioğlu attributes this to overlapping perpetrators, leading to political inertia. He argues for more proactive United Nations measures such as investigative commissions and enhanced sanctions.
Demirtaş points to a moral failing reminiscent of past humanitarian crises, urging renewed international pressure, including potential terrorist designations for RSF by the U.S.
Conclusion: A Crisis of Structural Collapse
Sudan’s current trajectory signals not just a temporary crisis but structural disintegration. With key regions at risk and the potential for ethnic cleansing evident, both Devecioğlu and Demirtaş warn of catastrophic consequences if decisive action is not taken.
Sudan’s war reveals a grim reality where internal conflict intertwines with global geopolitical interests, leaving the nation on the brink of a divide that could define its future.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
