Sudan Crisis: Part 1 - Why it deserves more attention
The local power struggle is brutal, but it is only a part of what’s happening
In any ‘normal’ time, a 16-month violent conflict in which more than 10 million people have been displaced, and where more than 25 million people (more than half the population) face acute food insecurity, shortages of food, water, medicine and fuel, should be preoccupying our minds and agitating our hearts.
So why is it that it has not received the attention it deserves? Perhaps it is because we are in highly abnormal times.
The horrors of a genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and Palestine are relayed live on our phones - not least by the occupying aggressors who boast of their atrocities. By contrast, the horrors in Sudan remain largely hidden. We do not see footage of the crimes. It is hard to find accurate mortality statistics - the estimates of 15,000 killed directly are likely to be a gross underestimate.
Starvation is used as a weapon of war. Some 755,000 people are facing the most severe level of extreme hunger in 10 out of 18 states, according to the UN hunger monitoring system, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). 18 million people, more than one third of the population, face some form of food insecurity. Both warring factions hinder impede access to aid.
Rape as a weapon of war is reportedly very high in Sudan - though again, accurate statistics are hard to find.
In Gaza, the whole of humanity (aside from a few die-hard appeasers) understand the injustice of the world’s most powerful states (US, UK, EU and allies) and institutions - as well the Arab and Muslim regimes - facilitating the Zionist occupation in their mass destruction - albeit feeling powerless to stop it. Yet the conflict in Sudan is altogether more complex to understand.
In geopolitical terms, the focus is on the Middle East and Ukraine, with fears of escalation of both these conflicts. Yet the situation in Sudan is potentially highly destablising in the region. There are over 600,000 refugees in Chad - which not only shares a border with Sudan, but tribal links. Egypt, which has received over 500,000 refugees, also has instability from the war on Gaza at its north-west. Whilst there are smaller numbers fleeing to Ethiopia (37,000), there are security tensions in that region.
Moreover, just as Palestine occupies a central place in the strategically vital region of the Middle East, Sudan is part of that strategically important Africa Transition Zone/Sahel (a term that encompasses Sudan, though is more commonly used for the area to the west of the great continent), as well as Sub-Saharan Africa more generally.
So let us try to understand this man-made disaster, and to remember the people who are suffering there on an unimaginable scale.
At one level there is a struggle for power between two military factions. On another level there are regional and global players vying for control and influence in the region. All of this needs to be understood against a background history and geography (both political and physical) .
This article, part 1, I will concentrate on the factors driving this disaster within Sudan itself.
The power struggle is between two military factions and their leaders. Though other political and military factions exist, they have largely been subsumed into taking one or other side. On the one hand are the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdelfattah al-Burhan - and on the other his former ally Mohammad Hamdan Dagalo (aka Hemdti) leading the Rapid Support Force (RSF). Both factions are implicated in the crimes that have been committed. When they take territory from the other, civilians are brutalised; troops loot from the people; and both RSF and SAF forces have used hunger as a weapon of war - systematically starving the people by blocking the entry of food and supplies to areas held by the other. Various political factions supporting the armed forces incite and exploit tribal divisions, ‘othering’ huge portions of the population as not being properly Sudanese, or affiliating them to neighbouring Chad. This was an ugly feature of the Bashir regime in the past, particularly in Darfur.
The immediate background to the conflict started before April 2023. The longstanding ruler of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, was ousted in a coup in 2019. Bashir oversaw the division of the country and the loss of South Sudan, as well as the war in Darfur. At one time both Burhan and Dagalo were his men, but both participated in the coup that deposed him. They oversaw a civilian-led joint military government to transition to full civilian and ‘democratic’ rule.
The conflict between the SAF and RSF arose during a period where there was supposed to be a transition between the military backed rule after the coup against Bashir, to democratic elections towards a civilian-led government.
A power-sharing agreement had been agreed in 2020 after the coup whereby the generals retained influence. Burhan would act as the head of the new sovereignty council – and as de facto head of state. Hemedti (Dagalo) was deputy head of the sovereignty council.
There was a “constitutional declaration” signed in August between the generals and the FFC (Forces of Freedom and Change) - the coalition of political and rebel actors who were active at the time of the coup that overthrew Bashir. Whereas there was meant to be a transition to a government led by a FFC appointee, the military leaders kept the control over defence and interior ministries.
In 2023, disagreements arose over the integration of the RSF into the armed forces of Sudan came to a head and then erupted into an armed conflict by the RSF to seize power.
Whilst the power struggle and hostility between Burhan and Dagalo maybe real, they also use their conflict in ways to exploit the people - to increase arms, recruit troops, and to try to win concessions from political actors like the FFC. Each side continues the fighting, more ruthless than the other, fearing the other will get the upper hand.
Bashir founded the RSF - originally known by the name of Janjaweed - to quell dissent in Darfur more than 20 years ago. The local people felt political and economic marginalisation from the central government in Khartoum. The RSF/Janjaweed were associated with many atrocities, and Bashir charged with war crimes.
Darfur has been plagued by conflict for over 20 years. There have been reports of the RSF conducting summary executions, rape, and killings based on tribe - targeting the members of Masalit tribe. There have been reports of mass graves found. This is the same as the disgusting tribalism that Sudan exhibited under the Bashir regime, which the RSF was supported by initially.
Sadly, the Sudanese Armed Forces are not clean in this incitement of tribal divisions. Whilst Burhan himself might not enter into the divisive language, some of the politicians who support the SAF, such as those affiliated to the NCP which was Bashir’s party, do incite tribal divisions by implying those tribes in the west of the country are not properly Sudanese, or say that they are really from Chad.
The truth is that tribes who have lived in this part of Africa have a nomadic past. Like many tribal societies, they lived in the land before there were fixed, nation-state borders. Once the borders emerged, tribes who were related to each other found themselves on different sides of the land. Yet, the modern world doesn’t recognise this and has not yet found a way to overcome this. Instead, they drive people from one side of a border to another.
But be in no doubt, tribalism is not the cause of the conflict in Darfur. According to some sources Dagalo’s forces control most of the region’s wealth, including the gold mines, from which the UAE exports $16 billion dollars.
The background history of colonialism is important to understand, but also the history of governance in the region itself .
It has been argued that British Imperialism in the 19th century created the conditions that have encouraged Sudan to be divided.
Until the early 19th century the region operated as a series of small sultanates including the Funj Sultanate and Darfur Sultanate. The nature of governance in the Ottoman era in non-urban areas was not one which attempted to control every aspect of life. However, Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt tried to bring the whole of Sudan under his control in his attempt to enhance his power so that he could eventually secede from the Ottomans.
Sudan remained under the control of “Ottoman Egypt” until around 1882. The British presence in Egypt led to a war to occupy Sudan. In 1899 the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Agreement of 1899 established a joint administration of Sudan by the British and Egyptian governments - the only country with divided sovereignty. Whilst both flags flew side by side, the decision makers by this stage were the British, intent on securing control of Egypt and the Nile.
Darfur was invaded and occupied by the British in 1916, occupying the capital al-Fashir. The sultan of Darfur, Ali Dinar, was seen to be too pro-Ottoman during World War One. From that time until ‘independence’, Darfur remained annexed to Sudan. Britain let go of direct control in 1953, but conflict followed as ever it did where the British had formerly been occupiers.
The British the region controlled through a classic divide and rule approach, both ethnically and religiously. The more “Arabised” communities in the north were empowered over the more “African” communities of the west and south. Where animist religious beliefs were present in the south, Christian missionary activities were established. Hence, modern day South Sudan which seceded from Sudan in 2011 is 60% Christian, 34% animist, and 6% Muslim.
These are the same tribal divisions that have been fault lines over the past two to three decades.
According to Graham Thomas in his 1990 work Sudan: Struggle for Survival, “The continuation of the North-Side divide was enhanced by the decision of Kitchener that the Southern Provinces should be permitted to be converted to Christianity, while the Northern Sudan remained Muslim.”
Technological benefits were preferentially given to the north, leaving southern communities impoverished and disgruntled.
Hence the roots of conflict and division were sown long ago - by the very same British colonialists who maintain their interest in the region by saying that ‘Arab’ communities are attacking ‘non-Arab’ tribes!
Yet, this fighting for power and resources, and tribalism, is all haram - with no one being in the right. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said إذَا الْتَقَى الْمُسْلِمَانِ بِسَيْفَيْهِمَا فَالْقَاتِلُ وَالْمَقْتُولُ فِي النَّارِ "When two Muslims are engaged in a combat against each other with their sword's and one is killed, both are doomed to Hell". I said, "O Messenger of Allah! As to the one who kills, it is understandable, but why the slain one?" He (ﷺ) replied: "إنه كان حريصاً على قتل صاحبه" "He was eager to kill his opponent". [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
In the next part, we will look at the role of external players in this conflict.
We pray for the safety of the people of Sudan, who are suffering immensley - and that Allah brings His Help and Victory soon.
Abdul Wahid has been active in Muslim affairs in the UK for over 25 years. He has been published on the websites of Foreign Policy, Open Democracy, the Times Higher Educational Supplement, and Prospect Magazine. You can follow him on X/Twitter @AbdulWahid_X.
https://www.unrefugees.org/news/sudan-crisis-explained/#:~:text=On%20April%2015th%2C%202023%2C%20violent,)%2C%20asylum%20seekers%20and%20refugees
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sudan-burhan-hemeti-tensions-escalate-framework-deal
Nice write-up
May Allah (st) reward you with his Pleasure akhi