Sudan in Flames: The Failed State Between Fratricidal War and Geostrategic Rivalries

The war in Sudan, which broke out in April 2023, constitutes a multidimensional crisis resulting from political fragmentation, a struggle for control of the state, and the generalization of conflicts. The war economy, the influence of external actors, and the geographical expansion of the fighting complicate stabilization. A lasting resolution will depend on international consensus, increased diplomatic pressure, and strategic management of internal resources.

Since the 2018-2019 revolution that led to the fall of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan has been plunged into an unstable transition. The latent tensions between rival military factions – the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – have escalated, leading to an armed conflict in April 2023. The war illustrates the failures of the Sudanese nation-state, exacerbated by ethnic and identity fragmentation, conflicting economic interests, and regional interference.

Since its accession to independence, Sudan has found itself mired in a cycle of chronic instability, the result of a conjunction of structural and historical factors. Identity fragmentation played a decisive role there, with deep ethnic and religious divides opposing a predominantly Muslim North to a South with a Christian and animist majority, a dichotomy that culminated in the secession of South Sudan in 2011. This failure to build a unified nation-state was exacerbated under a centralized and authoritarian regime, incapable of uniting the social and cultural diversities of the country. Moreover, the transition that began in 2019 after the fall of Omar al-Bashir's regime proved to be chaotic: the struggle for power between rival military factions not only weakened the institutions but also marginalized the aspirations for civilian governance, thereby exacerbating the country's political and social instability. This historical context illustrates the persistent challenges that Sudan continues to face in its quest for unity and stability.

Recent developments in Sudan highlight a complex dynamic marked by interactions between internal factors and external influences, exacerbating the crisis. The war economy constitutes a central pillar of this prolonged conflict, relying on an autarkic model where the exploitation of natural resources, particularly gold and minerals, fuels the hostilities. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF), under the leadership of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, finance their operations through illegal gold trade and regional alliances, thereby consolidating their economic and military grip. Moreover, the war, initially confined to Khartoum and Mérowé, has spread to strategic regions such as Darfur, Kordofan, and Gezira, amplifying the humanitarian crisis and causing massive population displacement. Moreover, the increasing involvement of external actors, particularly regional powers like Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, further exacerbates the instability. Each of these powers pursues specific strategic interests, whether it be control over the Nile's water resources or access to strategic corridors such as the Red Sea, transforming the conflict into an arena of geopolitical rivalries.

The current Sudanese landscape is dominated by actors with divergent strategies, whose conflicting interests shape the dynamics of the conflict. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) strive to maintain centralized control over the state and its economy, relying on strategic infrastructures and a well-entrenched military apparatus. In contrast, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) adopt a distinct approach, favoring aggressive territorial expansion and the establishment of a parallel economy based on illicit trade, particularly in gold. At the same time, the revolutionary civilian forces, although embodying the popular aspiration for democratic governance, remain fragmented and marginalized, unable to coordinate a unified opposition to the SAF and RSF, which weakens their ability to influence the course of events. Finally, the international community, far from being monolithic, is itself divided on the means of intervention. It oscillates between imposing sanctions, providing humanitarian aid, and attempting diplomatic mediation, reflecting often contradictory priorities and limiting its effectiveness in the face of the crisis's magnitude. This fragmentation of actors, both internally and externally, perpetuates a conflictual status quo and hinders any sustainable resolution.

The risks and implications of the Sudanese conflict are multiple and concerning. The perpetuation of the conflict is fueled by the war economy, which reinforces the interests of armed factions and limits the incentives for a peaceful resolution. On the humanitarian front, millions of people are displaced, facing acute food insecurity and limited access to humanitarian aid. Moreover, internal instability threatens the region, where external interference and geopolitical rivalries amplify the risks of the conflict spreading beyond Sudanese borders. These dynamics underscore the urgency of a coordinated response to this crisis.

In the face of the Sudanese crisis, several strategic options deserve to be considered to contain the conflict and lay the groundwork for a sustainable resolution. International diplomatic pressure is a priority, involving the mobilization of regional and international organizations to impose conditional ceasefires and promote inclusive peace talks, integrating not only military factions but also marginalized civilian forces. On the economic front, it is crucial to establish an international mechanism tasked with supervising and regulating the exploitation of natural resources, in order to prevent their diversion for financing hostilities. Conditional economic assistance could also be considered, aimed at restructuring the national economy to reduce dependence on the war economy. Finally, the intensification of humanitarian aid is essential to address the urgent needs of affected populations, particularly by expanding humanitarian access to conflict zones. These coordinated and integrated measures could help mitigate the crisis and restore a dynamic of stability in Sudan.
The strategic options aimed at resolving the Sudanese conflict come with significant risks that should be anticipated. A fierce resistance from military factions to any form of external control, whether it involves the regulation of natural resources or diplomatic pressures, could compromise international initiatives. Moreover, poor integration of civilian forces in peace negotiations risks exacerbating political and social fragmentation, thereby undermining stabilization efforts. Finally, the control of natural resources, if not rigorously regulated, could be diverted by external actors pursuing geopolitical or economic interests, thereby exacerbating instability. These risks underscore the necessity of a balanced strategic approach, taking into account local sensitivities and regional issues.

The evaluation of strategic initiatives in Sudan relies on clear and concrete metrics to measure their impact. First of all, a measurable reduction in violence over a 12-month period would be an essential indicator of progress towards pacification. Next, the stabilization and expansion of humanitarian access in the areas most affected by the conflict would be crucial to meet the urgent needs of the affected populations. Finally, the sustained engagement of stakeholders, including military, civilian, and external forces, in an inclusive and credible political transition process would be essential to lay the foundations for sustainable and shared governance. These metrics, taken together, allow for assessing the success of conflict resolution and national reconstruction efforts.

Ultimately, the war in Sudan reflects the deep flaws of the nation-state and power rivalries exacerbated by economic and geopolitical interests. A coordinated international response, incorporating increased diplomatic pressure and targeted humanitarian aid, is essential to prevent further deterioration. However, the sustainable resolution of this crisis will require a fundamental reconfiguration of governance structures and sustained engagement from local and international actors.