The recent reports of the massacre of hundreds of civilians in El Fasher, Darfur, mark a devastating continuation of the brutal conflict in Sudan, which has already claimed more than 150,000 lives over the past two and a half years. The situation has become increasingly complex as the war, often framed as a power struggle between two generals, involves multiple foreign powers whose interests contribute to the escalation of violence.
Sudan’s geographic significance adds to the perilous nature of the conflict. Positioned as a bridge between the Middle East and Africa, Sudan boasts a coastline along the Red Sea and is endowed with considerable agricultural land and rich mineral resources, including substantial gold deposits. Furthermore, the country is critical in regional water diplomacy as the Blue Nile flows through its territory.
In light of the escalating violence in Darfur, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced their willingness to enter a humanitarian truce proposed by the Quad, which includes the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This development reflects growing international concern over the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Sudan. A U.S. State Department spokesperson confirmed ongoing efforts to mediate a ceasefire, urging both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) to accept the agreement.
Historically, the involvement of foreign powers has been significant in Sudan. The UAE, for example, has faced accusations of supplying arms to the RSF, with evidence of weapon traces linking back to the Gulf state. Despite denials from UAE officials, many in the international community remain skeptical, suggesting that the UAE seeks to leverage Sudan’s wealth and resources while also opposing any democratic transition in the country. The RSF chief, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, has substantial connections within the UAE, further complicating the relationship.
Egypt has also maintained a vested interest in Sudan’s stability, particularly its implications for the Nile River and national security. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government has expressed support for the SAF following the fallout between the two generals. However, the humanitarian consequences of the ongoing conflict, including an influx of Sudanese refugees, pose additional challenges for Egypt.
Saudi Arabia’s role, while outwardly neutral, has involved subtle support for the SAF and efforts to mediate the conflict. The Kingdom’s interests in maintaining stability along the Red Sea are tied to broader economic plans and the wider geopolitical landscape.
Russia’s involvement in the conflict has been multifaceted, capitalizing on the chaos to strengthen its influence in Africa. U.S. officials have accused Russia of supporting both sides in the struggle, highlighting its backing of the RSF through the Wagner Group. The declining situation in Sudan has not gone unnoticed by Moscow, which views strategic opportunities that could arise from Sudan’s instability.
These complexities illustrate the numerous interests at play in Sudan, making the nation particularly vulnerable to external exploitation amidst its internal chaos. As the horrors of the conflict continue to unfold, international voices are calling for accountability and a cessation of violence, emphasizing the urgent need for a coherent and collective response to the humanitarian crises impacting Sudanese civilians.