The latest conflict in Sudan, which started on April 15, 2023, is nearing its second year with no resolution in sight. It began as a result of escalating tensions between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, leader of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). These tensions have plunged the nation into war, creating what has been described by UN experts as “one of the worst humanitarian disasters in recent memory.”

The violence has had a devastating impact on Sudan’s population. Tens of thousands have lost their lives, with new research by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) suggesting  at least 61,000 deaths reported in Khartoum State alone, far higher numbers than previously thought. The true toll is likely greater still when considering casualties in Darfur and other regions. Reports indicate that war crimes have been committed by both sides and ethnic cleansing has occurred, particularly in West Darfur, though the RSF denies these allegations.

The displacement crisis in Sudan is also one of the worst on record. Around  30% of the population have been uprooted, including an estimated 11 million displaced internally and 3 million who have sought refuge in neighbouring countries such as Chad, South Sudan, and Egypt. The strain on regional stability is immense, with host nations struggling to accommodate the influx.

The conflict has also pushed Sudan to the brink of famine, with the  United Nations  claiming it is the worst seen in decades, with around 24 million people, or half the population, in acute need of food. Hunger is now widespread, devastating urban centres like Khartoum and remote villages in Darfur alike. Humanitarian agencies describe the situation as a “man-made tragedy,” as warring factions deliberately obstruct aid deliveries, weaponising hunger against civilian populations. This has left millions reliant on limited and underfunded relief efforts, exacerbating the scale of suffering.

The conflict is further complicated by external powers, each pursuing their own interests in Sudan. The SAF enjoys backing from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while the RSF receives support from the UAE and Russian private military companies. Russia, in particular, has ties to both sides, seeking to secure access to Sudanese gold and geopolitical influence in the region. The involvement of these external actors transforms Sudan’s conflict into a proxy war, further complicating peace efforts. Each actor’s pursuit of strategic resources reveals a troubling trend where Sudan’s sovereignty and civilian suffering are subordinated to foreign agendas.

Significantly, international efforts to mediate have yielded no progress. This is a crisis that could and should have been mitigated but instead, foreign interests have exacerbated the conflict and there is no end in sight. The warring factions remain entrenched, showing no inclination to pursue peace, despite renewed calls from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to end hostilities and facilitate humanitarian aid access. The SAF’s refusal to engage in peace talks, including the Geneva initiative in August 2024, underscores a troubling lack of appetite for peace. While international bodies like the UN and African Union push for ceasefires, the warring factions remain focused on military gains. 

Sudan’s civilian population, already battered by decades of dictatorship and instability, now faces total abandonment by global leadership. The warring factions remain focused on military domination, ignoring mounting international pressure to cease hostilities or allow unrestricted humanitarian aid. Ultimately, international mediation efforts have floundered, and calls for peace have been largely ignored by those who hold power.

Meanwhile, Sudan’s civilian population bears the brunt of the war. Overcrowded camps struggle to meet basic needs, and international aid efforts are critically underfunded. Despite some successes in delivering aid, such efforts are temporary lifelines rather than sustainable solutions; it is near impossible to provide access to humanitarian aid without a ceasefire agreement in place.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:

UN calls for an End to Weapons Supplies

In November 2024 , a high-level UN Security Council briefing highlighted a surge in atrocities, including widespread sexual violence and indiscriminate killings. Rosemary DiCarlo, UN Undersecretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, accused the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) of committing mass killings and blamed the escalating violence on both warring factions and the substantial external support they continue to receive.

The United Nations has condemned the ongoing supply of arms to Sudan’s rival factions, describing it as a driving force behind civilian suffering. DiCarlo denounced the arms trade as “unconscionable” and called for an immediate halt to the flow of weapons. Amnesty International’s recent investigation revealed that French-manufactured military technology, incorporated into UAE-made armoured vehicles, is being used by the RSF in Sudan—likely violating longstanding UN and EU arms embargoes. These embargoes, in place since 2004 (UN) and 1994 (EU), specifically prohibit arms transfers to Sudan, including the conflict-torn Darfur region.

Both the SAF and RSF reportedly receive external military support despite these restrictions. Sudan’s government has accused the UAE of arming the RSF, an allegation the UAE denies. The RSF relies on supply routes through Chad, Libya, and South Sudan, as well as backing from Russia’s Wagner Group. The SAF similarly relies on supply lines from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Sudan is a country absolutely awash with armaments.

While the UN’s calls to halt weapons supplies underscore the severity of external interference, they also expose the inability of international bodies to enforce decades-old embargoes. Without robust mechanisms to hold violators accountable, these restrictions risk remaining a hollow gesture, rather than an actionable call for peace.

US imposes sanctions on RSF Commander

In an effort to hold perpetrators of violence accountable, the United States has imposed sanctions on Abdel Rahman Juma Barkalla, the RSF commander in charge of operations in West Darfur. Barkalla is accused of orchestrating widespread human rights abuses, including ethnically motivated violence and the killing of Khamis Abbaka, the region’s governor.

The US Department of the Treasury described Barkalla as a key figure in the atrocities, holding him responsible for terrorizing local populations since May 2023. The sanctions freeze his assets and ban him from international travel.

These measures align with similar actions by a UN committee, signalling growing international consensus on targeting individuals who perpetuate violence in Sudan. However, such sanctions, while symbolically significant, primarily affect individual actors rather than addressing the systemic violence perpetrated by both sides. Without broader multilateral efforts to dismantle the funding and supply networks, these sanctions can be considered a futile attempt to enact meaningful change. 

Russia vetoes Sudan Ceasefire resolution

Efforts to address the conflict at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reached a critical impasse in late November 2024. A resolution, spearheaded by the UK and Sierra Leone, called for an immediate ceasefire in Sudan and unrestricted humanitarian access.  These efforts faced a significant setback when Russia vetoed this resolution, drawing sharp criticism from British Foreign Secretary, David Lammy,  who condemned the move as “a callous betrayal of Sudan’s civilians,” accusing Moscow of prolonging the war for its own geopolitical gain.

Russia defended its position, arguing that a ceasefire must emerge from dialogue between the Sudanese and that their sovereignty was being ignored in an attempt to “meddle” in their affairs. Yet this justification is undermined by Russia’s own actions, as it maintains close ties to both warring factions— the RSF through the Wagner Group and the SAF through the Kremlin – and could therefore, play a fundamental part in the peace process.

This veto highlights the immense geopolitical complexities and challenges surrounding Sudan’s crisis and the difficulty of achieving international consensus on intervention. In particular, it raises urgent questions about the UNSC’s capacity to address humanitarian crises in an era of increasing geopolitical divisions and growing hostilities between member states in the Council. The failure to pass the resolution underscores a broader issue: without a ceasefire, it is nearly impossible to facilitate the large-scale delivery of humanitarian aid that is required. As the conflict intensifies, aid organisations face severe risks, with many unable to reach those in desperate need.

Britain’s Failure to Act

Although the United Kingdom has supported calls for a ceasefire in Sudan, this response has been widely criticised as a small move, too little and far too late. Critics argue that Britain’s leadership has been woefully lacking at a time when its expertise and influence are most needed. This inaction is especially striking given Britain’s historic ties to Sudan, from its role in shaping the region during colonial rule to brokering the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which ended decades of civil war and led to South Sudan’s independence.

Unlike its proactive leadership during the CPA negotiations, Britain has failed to galvanise international support for a peace process, retreating from its historic responsibilities. While diplomatic engagements, such as Dr. Abdalla Hamdok’s recent visit to London, have emphasised civilian priorities for ending the war, critics argue these efforts are insufficient. Hamdok’s coalition, the Coordination of Civil and Democratic Forces (Tagadum), remains fractured, reflecting broader disunity among Sudanese civilian groups. This lack of cohesion hampers efforts to build a strong civilian front capable of influencing negotiations.

Britain’s limited actions must also be seen within a broader context of international inattention and inaction. The global response, including from powers like the United States and Russia, has been woefully inadequate in addressing one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. This is in stark contrast to past efforts, such as the widespread international outcry against the 2006 genocide in Sudan when former president and Senator at the time, Barack Obama, declared: “If we care, the world will care. If we act, then the world will follow.” These words now resonate as a damning indictment of current events: when the United States and other key actors remain silent on Sudan and fail to act, the world follows suit.

CONCLUSION

Sudan remains in a state of emergency, grappling with unimaginable violence, displacement, and an impending famine that threatens an entire generation. International efforts to mediate have faced persistent resistance, exposing not only the geopolitical complexities but also the failure of global leadership to deliver tangible progress toward peace. While sanctions and resolutions signal some global concern, the lack of actionable progress leaves Sudan’s future shrouded in uncertainty and disrepair. 

Sudan’s crisis demands urgent and sustained international action that it has not yet received. A civilian coalition, supported by global allies, offers one potential pathway to lasting peace. Sudan’s history shows the power of grassroots movements, such as the 2019 uprising that ousted then President Omar al-Bashir. A renewed emphasis on civilian leadership could delegitimise both warring factions and shift the focus toward democracy and reconciliation.

The international community must pressure Sudan’s backers to cease financial and military support, while ramping up humanitarian assistance. So far, efforts have been appallingly limited, particularly from those that have historically had major say in Sudan, such as the United Kingdom. 

The alternative—a generation lost to starvation, displacement, and violence—is unthinkable. Immediate, decisive and sustained action is not just a moral imperative; it is the only path to halting further devastation in Sudan. 

Photo featured above: A family has constructed a makeshift shelter in the area of Shangil Tobaya, Sudan, after migrating from their village in Darfur where fighting is ongoing. UN Photo/Albert Gonzalez Farran. www.un.org/av/photo/