Disclaimer: This article was written in early May 2023 and may be outdated by the time of publication.
On April 15, 2023, violence erupted in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary unit led by Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, referred to as Hemetti. The fighting has damaged the city’s airport, killed 403 civilians, and forced 700,000 civilians out of the country. The main root of the conflict lies in the rivalry between the two generals. However, it is also the result of ongoing tensions following al-Bashir’s dictatorial reign from 1989 to April 2019. Clashes have spread throughout the country in strategic military sites. Sudan continues to be a shatterbelt (a geostrategic region prone to conflict due to internal divides) where political instability has worsened the social and economic conditions of the population.
In 1989, Omar al-Bashir overthrew the civilian government led by Sadiq al-Mahdi. Al-Bashir ruled throughout the Sudanese civil war and was at the forefront of the massacre of non-Arab Darfuri people. During his time in power, he abolished all political parties. In 2019, Al-Bashir appointed al-Burhan as Inspector General of Sudan’s armed forces and Hemetti as the leader of the RSF. Then, in April 2019, al-Burhan and Hemetti led a coup d’état, ousting al-Bashir from power. Sudan’s new president, al-Burhan, attempted to develop diplomatic relations with global powers, particularly with the USA and Israel. However, Sudan needed to demonstrate that it was not a dictatorship, attempting to deny the occurrence of a coup. Therefore, in August 2019, Hemetti and al-Burhan created the Transitional Sovereignty Council, ruled by military leaders and civilian groups. This government was established to only last three years and three months; the military junta would control the country for the first twenty-one months, and the civilian groups would have power for the following eighteen months. In October 2021, once the civilian groups were in power, the two generals overthrew the government, detaining government officials and eradicating freedom of the press and all political parties.
Several factors can explain the military’s reluctance to hand over power, ultimately leading to the continuity of their rule. Both al-Burhan and Hemetti were involved in war crimes committed during the Sudanese Civil War. Hemetti was involved in the Darfur conflict. Al-Bashir recruited him to be a commander in the Janjaweed, a group of Arab militias formed due to centrifugal forces, dividing non-Arabs against Arabs. The Janjaweed were accused of committing war crimes against opponents of al-Bashir’s government during the 2003 Darfur Rebellion. Hemetti’s involvement in these atrocities ultimately elevated him to greater positions of power, becoming the leader of the RSF in 2013.
Similarly, al-Burhan was a regional army commander during the Darfur Genocide. In contrast to al-Bashir, the two generals were never charged for these atrocities, despite having significant roles in their perpetuation. The emergence of the civilian government would have potentially put their past back on the table, threatening their legitimacy.
Moreover, the junta feared a loss of economic power. Resource-rich, Sudan’s economy relies on gold exports to other countries. The state-owned enterprises that control all of Sudan’s natural resources have been accused of corruption, permitting al-Burhan and Hemetti to grow their wealth at the expense of the economic suffering of civilians. A civilian-led government would have decreased the generals’ control of their economic wealth by more fairly redistributing the profits made from the trade of lucrative resources.
Following October 2021, al-Burhan reintegrated politicians associated with al-Bashir, allowing him to regain the trust lost from the coup d’état of 2019. Hemetti was strongly opposed to this action due to his reluctance towards the Islamist members associated with al-Bashir. The two powerful leaders began to drift apart and would eventually fight for control over the government.
A stark difference that divides the two generals is their origins. The Sudanese political sphere has historically been dominated by the ethnic group from Khartoum along the Nile River. Al-Burhan belongs to this group of Sudanese elite political figures, which advantages him. However, Hemetti is an Arab Darfuri, putting him in a position of weakness, especially in the eyes of Khartoum. The Sudanese government has expressed that the RSF are “country bumpkins” incapable of leading the nation.
Yet, Hemetti portrays himself as representative of the marginalized communities of Sudan, despite his past actions against non-Arab Darfuri people. Additionally, his resentment towards the elites has helped him gain supporters. In pursuing political legitimacy, he has created alliances with rebel groups within the Darfur region and extended RSF military bases across the country. He desires to be perceived as a proponent of democracy and to achieve that; he needs to defeat the SAF.
Meanwhile, the SAF has proposed integrating the RSF into the Sudanese army. Al-Burhan, having shifted from previous positions, now intends to have one national army that rules beside a civilian-led government. Although both leaders signed the internationally backed agreement in December 2022, further transitioning the country to democracy, Hemetti’s opposition to such a procedure increased tensions between the two generals. Hemetti wants supreme rule over the country, as he does not trust the SAF’s ability to rule democratically. The inability of the generals to resolve their rivalry through peaceful negotiations ultimately triggered the fighting.
The fighting began in Khartoum, which has been mostly dominated by the RSF. Active conflict in the capital is unprecedented, because Sudan’s wars have generally been carried out in regions with large minority populations, often targeted towards a specific group. This conflict, being between the two generals instead of between ethnic groups, has awakened fighting in other parts of the country, especially in West Darfur, where the RSF has many military bases. The SAF has expanded its domination throughout the state due to its access to planes, enabling it to use air strikes. The RSF has used artillery and tanks in their attacks. Additionally, the two sides are carrying out their attacks in densely populated areas, harming civilians with disregard.
Although the war is ultimately between two generals, it has severely torn Sudan’s population. The chaos began during the holy month of Ramadan. Civilians have confined themselves to their homes as the streets have turned into war zones. Electricity has become scarce, making communication services difficult to access. Civilians have also been forced to ration food and other essential supplies. They have been confronted with the dilemma of leaving or staying, which is highly dependent on their financial status. Indeed, the cost of transportation to neighboring countries has
increased following the war’s outbreak. For instance, bus fares to Egypt have nearly quadrupled, rising to $260 per passenger, being out of reach for most of Sudan’s population.
The departure of non-governmental organizations has worsened the situation of civilians. For instance, on April 15, the UN World Food Programme temporarily suspended its activities in West Darfur due to security concerns. Left abandoned, with no outside aid or government services, local organizations have carried out essential services. These groups, also known as the third army, formed during al-Bashir’s dictatorship, distribute medicine, provide informal medical services, and ultimately play the roles of diplomats, police, hospitals, and firefighters. Moreover, they have been creating maps, shared on social media, that track injured individuals seeking help. However, on May 11, 2023, both parties signed an agreement allowing humanitarian assistance to resume in the country. Although this is a step forward, a ceasefire seems highly unlikely. The US, Saudi Arabia, and the United Nations are attempting to increase their involvement in Sudan through a “ceasefire monitoring mechanism.” Having been proponents of peaceful negotiations toward democracy, these international forces want to ensure transparent reporting through on-the-ground presence and satellite imagery technology. Yet, there persists to be a debate on the intervention of international forces, especially of Western governments, who did not consider all factors when making proposals. As the West encouraged the generals to establish democracy, they undermined the difficulty of a democratic transition, considering political transitions as analogous worldwide. Historically speaking, imposing Western ways of governing can be naive and is a strategy that does not contextualize the situations of each country.