A member of the Sudanese Armed forces walks between damaged buildings in Omdurman, Sudan on April 7, almost one year into the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).El Tayeb Siddig/Reuters
A year ago, Sudan suddenly changed from a place of hopeful return to the world’s most disturbing source of fleeing victims.
In early spring of 2023, just about every Sudanese family you met in North America and Europe – most of whom had emigrated during the three decades of violent brutality under Islamist dictator Omar al-Bashir – was getting ready to return for a visit, buy a house or even start a business. After the 2019 democratic uprising that unseated Mr. al-Bashir, Sudan’s constitutional agreement seemed to have made the East African country a functioning democracy with a sustainable economy.
Then, a year ago Monday, Sudan exploded overnight into violence and mass murder on an unimaginable scale, and became the site of what many consider to be the world’s most cruel and regionally destabilizing military conflict, as two competing generals set siege against each other’s militias and most of the civilian population.
Close to nine million Sudanese have been forced to abandon their homes during the past 12 months. About two million of them have sought shelter in other countries, mainly in Africa and the Middle East, creating crises in many of those countries. Those who lack the resources to flee have fared worse: According to United Nations data, about 18 million people, a third of the population, are malnourished; five million are on the edge of famine.
More so than other wars today, the one in Sudan is utterly avoidable and unnecessary, involving two militias created by the former dictator Mr. al-Bashir, neither of which should have a role in governing Sudan: the Sudanese Armed Forces, with Islamic-extremist ties, and the Rapid Support Forces, a paramilitary formerly known as the Janjaweed that was responsible for the 2004 mass ethnic slaughter in Darfur – and which, according to an assessment released this week, has recently committed similar mass atrocities. Both forces control major sectors of the economy, including much of Sudan’s gold-mining exports.
Neither appears capable of winning or consolidating power, making the conflict ripe for a consolidated outside effort at ceasefire and civilian resolution. Yet it has received far less attention than less resolvable conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, both from media and from governments such as Canada’s. That is tragic, because it is one conflict we could play a significant role in ending.
This week, European and North American governments gathered in Paris to mark the anniversary of the conflict with a donor’s conference. They assembled about US$2-billion in aid pledges for Sudan and its neighbours – less than half of what the UN says it needs to meet humanitarian needs there.
Canada, for its part, broke a year of near-silence on the Sudan file by announcing $132-million in new aid; on Monday, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly announced sanctions targeting businesses linked to the SAF, the RSF and their leaders, months after other Western governments imposed similar sanctions.
Both moves were welcomed by experts and agencies involved in Sudan. But they noted that an actual resolution to the conflict has been hampered by the fact that Western countries have largely left the conflict to Sudan’s refugee-packed neighbouring states, which have largely responded by backing one or another of the militias and trying to deliver them victory. Egypt, for instance, has backed the SAF, and the United Arab Emirates is said to be supporting the RSF. For that reason, a series of peace conferences held in the region has amounted to little.
“When you have two bullies fighting to the death, a third-party intervention is key, and it’s the only way that you’re able to stop it – and I think it’s possible,” said Khalid Medani, a McGill University political scientist who specializes in East African and Islamic politics. “It doesn’t mean the violence won’t continue for a while. But we know very well how peaceful resolution can evolve after a ceasefire. It has worked well in other African conflicts, and it is the role of civil society and foreign actors to create a blueprint that will return the country to a democratic transition.”
Because the United States is tied up in other world conflicts and the European Union is largely concerned with refugee movements, Canada could be uniquely positioned to broker a settlement, Dr. Medani said – especially since Ottawa is currently formulating an Africa strategy, and played a significant role in bringing resolution and statehood to neighbouring South Sudan a decade and a half ago.
“Canada can take the diplomatic front – let us do the co-ordination with Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Egypt. Let us provide that forum. No one is expecting Canada to give billions of dollars, but this really jibes with Canadian domestic politics and interests and its view of itself,” he said. “If Ottawa is in the midst of designing an Africa strategy, Sudan should be the test case for it.”