Barriers to Peace: Sudan’s Ongoing Civil War

Emily Sawires

Introduction

Sudan is no stranger to conflict, with a history plagued by decades of coups, ethnic cleansing, and intrastate war. The current civil war has produced a detrimental humanitarian crisis that involves pervasive famine, displacement, and sexual violence. While numerous peace talks have taken place, all attempts to secure a lasting ceasefire have thus far failed. A critical force fueling the conflict is sponsorship of the Sudanese warring factions by regional Middle Eastern powers. The direct economic and political benefits these states derive from affiliations with armed groups are a fundamental obstacle to procuring peace in Sudan, with domestic interests often taking precedence over lasting regional stability.

Background on the Civil War

Sudan has experienced 35 coups throughout the state’s short history, with the current civil war beginning after former dictator Omar al Bashir was ousted upon reaching 30 years in office. The coup was staged in collaboration with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and a paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). As disagreements arose surrounding the leadership of the nation’s military, the SAF and RSF’s partnership dissolved. The first shots were fired in the spring of 2023 in Khartoum, the nation’s capital. Each party claimed the other was responsible for the initial shooting, officially kickstarting the civil war. Territorial struggles have defined the course of the war to date, beginning with the RSF’s rapid takeover of Khartoum. While the Sudanese army regained control of the northeastern area earlier this year, including the capital, RSF conquered a critical city, El Fasher, at the end of October, thus cementing its occupation of the state’s southwestern region. The siege of El Fasher effectively displaced over 60,000 Sudanese people, contributing to figures exceeding 12 million displaced people over the course of the war, among a myriad of humanitarian disasters in the country. 

Regional Power Involvement

Many surrounding states are allegedly affiliated with the two sides, leaving the country entangled in foreign politics and proxy wars. The SAF is believed to be backed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, while the RSF is reportedly sponsored by Ethiopia, Chad, and the United Arab Emirates. The stakes in the civil war are heightened by Middle Eastern nations and underpinned by economic and security-related concerns. Since the early twentieth century, Sudan’s resources have been a fundamental asset for the country’s neighbors, especially due to the state’s gold mines, agriculture, and strategic benefits resulting from its location by the Red Sea. Several Gulf countries, including Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, have especially profited from investment, sourcing over 80% of their food from Sudan during President al Bashir’s regime. When the RSF and SAF staged a coup against the dictator, the UAE and Saudi Arabia jointly pledged a three-billion-dollar loan, which was swiftly withdrawn as military power in the government waned. Following the coup, the majority of Sudan’s resources were taken under control by the armed groups, effectively incentivizing sponsorship of the forces in order to ensure continued access to imports from the country. 

Egypt’s relationship with the Sudanese government is notable, resulting from ties dating back to their shared era of British colonization and an allied stance on Nile Basin politics. Both states remain loyal to the nearly 100-year-old Nile Waters Agreement and have condemned Ethiopia’s recently constructed dam due to the risk of flooding and exacerbated water insecurity. As a result, Egypt has sponsored the SAF, with reports indicating that Egypt provides the military group with arms. In contrast, Ethiopia supports the RSF, which has intervened against rebel movements in the neighboring state. The two countries demonstrate a mutual commitment to the protection of resources and solidarity against shared threats through military funding.

On a greater scale, the close alliance between the RSF and the UAE has played a significant role in the mutual provision of resources. In 2024, the UAE received nearly 97% of Sudan’s military-controlled gold exports, resulting in a multibillion-dollar profit. Meanwhile, the UAE has been the most powerful backer of the RSF, covertly supporting them since the start of the war. Despite the UAE’s claims that their involvement in the conflict is solely humanitarian, the amount of administered aid is significantly less than the amount of deliveries that have entered the country. 

Middle Eastern powers are far from being the lone sources of foreign involvement in Sudan. Russia has played a substantial role in fueling the conflict by providing the RSF with arms and aid. Ever since President al Bashir’s time in power, the Wagner Group, a Russian military company, has been the recipient of gold mining concessions from Sudan. Once the civil war began, Russia transferred its support to the RSF, which maintained the pre-war arrangement. The conflict has turned into a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine, with the latter pledging support to the SAF. Ukraine’s relationship with the SAF preceded the present war, as the armed group had provided the country with weapons following Russia’s 2022 invasion. In turn, Ukraine sent military forces to Sudan in an effort to dually combat RSF occupation and Russian involvement in the country. The development of a proxy war in Sudan has left the nation caught in yet another crossfire of foreign strategic interests.

Humanitarian Crisis Amid Power Struggles

In the midst of complex international relations and commitments, Sudan is experiencing what the United Nations has deemed to be “one of the worst humanitarian crises of the twenty-first century.” Over 12 million people have been displaced since the conflict’s advent, with the figure rapidly increasing as territorial conquests escalate. Earlier this year, the United States declared that the RSF has been committing genocide against ethnic groups in Darfur, with tens of thousands of people killed. The SAF has been known to perpetrate airstrikes on civilian areas and has been sanctioned by the United States for use of chemical weapons. Sudanese women of all ages are subjected to sexual violence, including in designated safe zones, such as hospitals, with no avenues to seek protection or justice. Furthermore, the UN World Food Programme has determined that several Sudanese regions are currently experiencing famine, with over 20 more territories at risk of similar food insecurity.

Obstacles facing the administration of aid and humanitarian relief have exacerbated this crisis. Hospitals and healthcare personnel have been targeted by RSF attacks, with reports showing that hundreds of patients and staff have been killed in the Darfur region. USAID cuts were a devastating blow to the nation, as the program had provided nearly half of Sudan’s funding in 2024. Furthermore, the SAF has been caught preventing aid from entering areas occupied by the RSF, as well as blocking humanitarian workers from obtaining visas. The UAE’s sponsorship of the RSF under the guise of administering aid has provided the paramilitary group with the resources to continue inflicting violence instead of relieving the crisis. Since the start of the war, more than 16 ceasefires have failed, in addition to numerous fruitless peace talks facilitated by the United States and Saudi Arabia.  

While the regional hegemons outwardly condemn the violence, their investments and relationships to the civil war contradict these claims. Sudan’s neighbors in North Africa and West Asia hold clear stakes in the continuation of the conflict. Through ensuring that the nation remains under the control of armed groups, rather than promoting a transition to a democratic regime, countries like Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia secure access to Sudan’s resources and protect geopolitical strategic interests. The failure of the international community to intervene has partially sustained the war, which is further demonstrated through the lack of civilian representation during peace talks. Along with the direct funding of the armed groups by neighboring states, the aid cuts and lack of awareness have led the suffering of the Sudanese people to go unrecognized. Media coverage of the conflict is critically low, contributing to a deficit of urgency on the international stage. The lack of news coverage and the economic benefits surrounding countries reap by sponsoring the armed groups play an integral role in preventing positive foreign intervention from reaching Sudan. 

Conclusion

Conflict escalation in Sudan has been partially perpetuated by the country’s neighbors, contributing to one of the most severe humanitarian crises in modern history. Sudan’s transition from an authoritarian regime to civil war has continued to serve the interests of neighboring states, providing them with relatively low-cost access to critical resources and little motive to intervene in the interest of peace. The lack of sufficient aid and media attention has reduced the likelihood of the conflict ending in the near future. As long as Sudan’s neighbors and global superpowers fail to work towards sincere peaceful intervention, the fate of the Sudanese people promises to be compromised by ongoing war, ethnic cleansing, and barriers to health and prosperity.