Sudan: a prolonged conflict with little light on the horizon - Security Council

Artículo escrito por: José Manuel Jiménez Vidal y Sofía Fernández Cayon.

Origins of the Conflict and Historical Background

April 15, 2023; alarm bells ring once again in Khartoum: the current third civil war in Sudan has just erupted. But what has happened this time? To understand it, we must take a step back and analyze it with some perspective:

Looking back to 2003, when two rebel groups—the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement—rose up against the government of Omar al-Bashir, triggering what became known as the Darfur Conflict, we can identify certain defining characteristics. In essence, it was a conflict marked by ethnic tensions and struggles over resources and political representation, but it was also rooted in historical dynamics carried over from the second civil war, which was nearing its end.

During that conflict, the Sudanese government armed and supported the Janjaweed militia, which fought against the rebels and was eventually formalized in 2013 as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). These forces have been accused of committing crimes against humanity, including massacres and acts of genocide—such as the Khartoum massacre in 2019—and are now key protagonists in the current war. At the time, they acted on behalf of the government and carried out severe atrocities such as the burning of non-Arab villages, mass killings, and systematic sexual violence, leading to the displacement of millions of people. In 2009, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against the Sudanese leader, marking the first time the institution had done so against a sitting head of state. However, his continued hold on power until his overthrow in 2019, and his subsequent detention under Sudanese internal proceedings, have prevented his transfer to The Hague.

Political transition, power struggles, and the return to war

Following Omar al-Bashir’s ousting, a mixed Sovereign Council (civilian and military) was established, with Abdel Fattah al-Burhan leading the military wing and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo—the RSF leader—serving as vice president. A transitional period began, but tensions over the integration of the RSF into the national army led to the 2021 coup, when al-Burhan declared a state of emergency. The civilian branch was sidelined, and tensions between military leaders escalated to the point that, in 2023, the conflict reignited.

Returning to the present, the current war, although unfolding within a broader structural political crisis rooted in the colonial era, is primarily driven by the power ambitions of both sides: the RSF and the Sudanese army. This war can also be classified among the so-called “silent conflicts” in Africa, as it does not receive the media attention warranted by the severity of the events taking place. According to estimates from international organizations, by 2025 the number of civilian deaths had tripled, reaching nearly 11,500, alongside thousands of injured and around a thousand missing persons. Internal displacement has reached 11 million people—70% of whom come from Darfur—while neighboring countries have received nearly 4 million refugees.

Sexual violence in these conflicts also remains largely overlooked. According to Al Jazeera, in 2024 many Sudanese women were forced to engage in sexual relations with members of both sides in order to guarantee their safety. This further highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to conflict resolution, as not only economic, political, and military dimensions are at play, but also a gender perspective is essential to protect vulnerable groups.

Internationalization of the conflict and fragmentation of actors

The role of the international community—and particularly the UN Security Council—is crucial in ensuring an end to hostilities and facilitating an effective and inclusive political transition. As the main UN body responsible for maintaining international peace and security, it must weigh effective measures to end the war, whether through arms embargoes, peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations, or diplomatic and economic pressure. In all cases, the protection of civilians and the resolution of the humanitarian crisis must remain paramount, although achieving this will require significant long-term efforts. Today, Sudan is immersed in a long, bloody, and largely overlooked conflict that threatens to destabilize the entire region.

To this already extremely complex scenario must be added the growing indirect internationalization of the conflict, which further intensifies both its duration and severity. Although it is not a conventional interstate war, various external actors have demonstrated strategic interests in Sudan, whether for geopolitical, economic, or regional security reasons. The country’s position—serving as a gateway between sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, as well as the Sahel, with access to the Red Sea and proximity to regional powers such as Egypt and Ethiopia—makes it a crucial hub for trade, energy routes, and military strategy.

In this regard, regional powers such as Cairo have traditionally supported the Sudanese regular army, led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, due to shared interests in the stability of the Nile Valley and the containment of insurgent movements. Meanwhile, the Rapid Support Forces, commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo—also known as “Hemedti”—have maintained more ambiguous ties with actors such as the United Arab Emirates, particularly in connection with the gold trade, one of the country’s most valuable resources.

Sudanese gold, extracted from regions such as Darfur and Kordofan, has become a central element of the conflict. The RSF controls numerous mines and export routes, enabling it to finance its military operations independently and undermining any attempt at state control. This reflects a common dynamic in modern conflicts: the “war economy,” in which natural resources not only fuel violence but also create incentives to prolong it.

At the global level, powers such as Russia have shown interest in establishing a naval base on the Red Sea, while companies linked to the Wagner Group have been accused of involvement in Sudan’s mining sector. Meanwhile, the United States and the European Union have attempted diplomatic mediation, albeit with limited success due to internal fragmentation and the lack of genuine political will among the warring parties.

Another key factor in understanding the prolongation of the war is territorial fragmentation and the multiplicity of armed actors. Although the main conflict pits the army against the RSF, numerous rebel groups, local militias, and armed movements with their own agendas operate across the country, particularly in peripheral regions such as Darfur, Blue Nile, and South Kordofan. Some of these groups, such as the Sudan Liberation Movement, have formed temporary alliances with one side or the other depending on shifting strategic interests.

This fragmentation greatly complicates any negotiation process, as there is no single representative interlocutor or clear power structure. From a conflict resolution perspective, this means that even if an agreement were reached between the two main factions, violence could persist at the local level.

Humanitarian crisis, regional impact, and prospects for resolution

From a humanitarian standpoint, the situation continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate. Organizations such as the United Nations have warned that Sudan is facing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world today. The combination of mass displacement, collapse of the healthcare system, food insecurity, and lack of access to humanitarian aid has created near-famine conditions in several regions of the country.

Moreover, access for humanitarian organizations is severely restricted due to insecurity and blockades imposed by the armed actors themselves. As a result, millions of people remain completely unprotected, without access to basic services such as clean water, healthcare, or education. In cities like Khartoum, urban warfare has destroyed much of the infrastructure, turning densely populated areas into active war zones.

The regional impact is also significant. Neighboring countries such as Chad, South Sudan, and Ethiopia are receiving large flows of refugees, placing additional strain on their already fragile economic and social systems. This increases the risk of regional instability, particularly in border areas where tensions already exist.

At the same time, the conflict has had a devastating effect on Sudanese social cohesion. Polarization, mistrust between communities, and the normalization of violence are eroding the foundations of peaceful coexistence. Younger generations, who led the pro-democracy protests of 2019, now face a landscape marked by despair and lack of opportunity.

Despite this bleak outlook, there are still elements that could serve as a basis for future resolution. First, Sudanese civil society continues to demonstrate a remarkable capacity for organization and resilience. Community support networks, resistance committees, and local organizations continue to operate under extremely difficult conditions, providing assistance and keeping democratic aspirations alive.

Second, international pressure—although insufficient so far—could become more effective if better coordinated. Measures such as stricter arms embargoes, targeted sanctions against leaders responsible for human rights violations, and strengthened international justice mechanisms—such as those led by the International Criminal Court—could help shift the incentives of the warring parties.

Finally, any lasting solution must address the structural causes of the conflict: regional inequality, political exclusion, competition over resources, and institutional weakness. Without deep reforms that include all communities and ensure a fair distribution of power and wealth, the risk of renewed cycles of violence will remain high.

In conclusion, the war in Sudan is not merely a confrontation between two military factions, but the result of decades of accumulated tensions, competing interests, and structural failures. Its prolonged and “silent” nature should not diminish its importance—on the contrary, it highlights the limitations of the international system in responding to complex crises and underscores the urgent need for a more comprehensive and sustained approach. Meanwhile, millions of Sudanese remain trapped in a reality defined by violence, uncertainty, and the absence of a clear path toward peace.