US, partners scurry to contain fighting in Sudan

The U.S. and international partners are scrambling to contain an outbreak of fierce fighting in Sudan, where a conflict between heavily armed military factions risks exploding into a civil war that threatens devastating consequences.

Intense diplomacy by the U.S., the U.K., the African Union, United Nations, Gulf countries and others succeeded in extending a cease-fire early Friday morning for at least 72 hours. It provides the U.S. and others a small and limited opening to try to rein in Sudan’s warring generals, who are fighting for power, money and impunity. 

It’s a brief reprieve from nearly two weeks of fighting that has killed hundreds, wounded thousands and sent tens of thousands fleeing the country, under assault from airstrikes, heavy artillery and street fighting, as well as looting. 

“It’s a huge, positive development,” said Dr. Yasir Elamin, president of the Sudanese American Physicians Association, of the cease-fire. “We’re very happy with it, but there is sporadic fighting, and there is also this lawlessness with gangs and thugs also taking over the streets.”  

Elamin, who is based in Texas but serves as a spokesperson for Sudanese medical professionals on the ground, has documented that of the 500 civilians killed, 13 medical professionals have died — the most recent being a Sudanese-American doctor killed on Wednesday.

“I think what we need to do is just to try to, all of us, advocate to capitalize on this leverage, so this cease-fire translates into a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Sudan,” he said.

“The humanitarian toll is going to be significant if we allow this to escalate, and I don’t think it’s too late.”

A shift in ‘power dynamics’

The U.S. and partners are in intensive discussions to halt the fighting between Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, commander of Sudan’s Armed Forces (SAF), and Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo “Hemedti,” who controls a separate military faction called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The two generals united in a military coup in October 2021 to overthrow a transitional civilian-military government, but the outbreak of war between them on April 15 is believed to have come from a breakdown in international negotiations to integrate the rival forces and transition to civilian rule. 

“What’s happened in the last 14 days has fundamentally shifted power dynamics and shows that the, sort of, rules of the game inside of the country have changed. And so the political process is also going to have to adapt to respond to that reality,” said Susan Stigant, director for the Africa program at the U.S. Institute of Peace. 

“Blame can be cast all around,” said Ernst Jan Hogendoorn, who served until February as senior adviser to the U.S. special envoy to Sudan and South Sudan, during a panel discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council on Wednesday. 

“Partners have been struggling with the rivalry between RSF and SAF over the last four years and worried about what would happen if anyone were to see one side gaining advantage over the other,” he continued.

“And essentially, what we believe happened, Gen. Hemedti, commander of RSF, his power was potentially going to wane over the next period. And thus, he decided to launch a coup against Gen. Burhan, the leader of the SAF, and that led to the fighting that we are now trying to stop.”

Mariam al-Mahdi, Sudan’s former civilian foreign minister and who is sheltering in place in Khartoum, told the BBC on Thursday that the chances for success of a cease-fire are “very meager.”

“The two fighting men, one of them is supposed to be the head of the sovereign council, the No. 1 ruler of Sudan, and the second one is his deputy, they are the only ones who are supposed to be responsible of the well-being, protection of the Sudanese people,” she said. 

“They couldn’t, for the last 13 days, find a way to look at the Sudanese people as humans and to have a humanitarian cease-fire for only six hours, because now they got into personal vendetta against each other.”

Generals’ allies could help, hurt situation

The military commanders each have their own backers among African and Arab and Gulf leaders, who have the potential to calm the situation or risk devolving it further as they pursue their self-interests. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are considered to have the most influence on Burhan and Hemedti. Egypt is a strong military backer of the SAF.

Still, there is hope that these outside actors, along with the U.S., have the ability to pressure the generals to calm the situation. 

“If we look to the evacuations of foreign nationals that have taken place and in a very complex environment, and I think in a risky environment, the relative success of those evacuations, I think, shows us that leverage can be exercised successfully,” said Stigant, of USIP.

“The question is who will lead, to make sure that all of those countries view the ending of violence as a pathway towards achieving their own interests.”

Massive impacts: humanitarian, economic, political

The descent into war between the two generals is exacerbating already large-scale humanitarian needs in the country, with at least 15 million people relying on humanitarian assistance even before this outbreak of fighting, according to the United Nations.

The unchecked violence risks destabilizing a fragile and strategic region of Africa. Sudan shares borders with seven countries, is considered a key crossroads between north and sub-Saharan Africa, and is a transit point for hundreds of millions of dollars of sea commerce on the Nile River and Red Sea. 

Instability and fighting also leave a vacuum for terrorist groups to exploit and are a venue for the geopolitical battle between the U.S. and Russia.

The RSF reportedly has a military supply line through Libya provided by Russia’s private military group Wagner, whose forces are on the frontlines of Russia’s war in Ukraine but serves as a security-for-hire group in fragile African states, with atrocities against civilians a defining characteristic of their operations. ​

The violence is a devastating blow to the Sudanese people, whose hard-won, grassroots revolution in 2019 — which deposed a dictator, succeeded in removing the country from the U.S. list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and was working toward a transition to a civilian-led democracy — was reversed by Burhan and Hemedti’s military coup in 2021. 

“Since the beginning, there was a clear dichotomy, I would say, between the logic of revolution, what I call the euphoria and the wishful thinking of the revolution, and the reality of governance in a country like Sudan,” Nureldin Satti, the former Sudanese ambassador to the U.S., said during the Atlantic Council panel.

“The balance of power is not in favor of the revolution of the civilians. … The idea is we need a dialogue, a really clear and frank dialogue between civilians and military on the future of the relations and how the military is accommodated within the Sudanese brand of democracy, a country that has suffered for decades of military predominance.”