Unpacking the crisis: The civil war in Sudan

Whatever your newspaper of choice — The Guardian, BBC, The Times, or The Daily Telegraph — you cannot scroll past the online homepage without finding news about Gaza or Ukraine at the front and centre. Whatever the news outlet and its political bias, coverage of these conflicts is unavoidable, and rightly so. Wars shape our cultural landscapes, lying at the forefront of almost every political decision and causing seismic shifts in economies. The documentation of these atrocities is equally important to broadcast the truth and increase awareness worldwide, and yet, why does the horrific and sustained violence in Sudan’s civil war remain so disturbingly underreported?

Sudan has not known stability for a long time. Referring to a Sudanese Civil War could apply to at least three different conflicts that have taken place since 1955, not to mention multiple other internal conflicts like that of the War in Darfur which lasted close to two decades. Following a history of violence, the year 2019 and the coup that ended Omar al-Bashir’s nearly 30-year dictatorship appeared to bring a new dawn for the Sudanese nation. It appeared that genuine democracy and stability within the Northeast African country could be on the horizon.

The nation’s total tally of coups since 1950 is now eighteen (with six being successful) – the highest in all of African nations

The joint civilian-military body which came about as a result of the 2019 coup saw key figures Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo – better known as ‘Hemedti’ – and Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan as chairmen of the Transitional Military Council (TMC). The two sought to find a way to transition Sudan back to a democracy. A mere two years later, another coup saw the military seize full control from the joint civilian-military body that had once offered the Sudanese people a fragile promise of peace and stability. The second coup in three years, it only served to reinforce Sudan’s crippling instability. The nation’s total tally of coups since 1950 is now eighteen (with six being successful) – the highest in all of African nations.

Following the 2021 coup, a council of generals led Sudan, with Hemedti and Burhan at the helm. Power struggles and disagreement about the future of Sudan eventually led to the civil war. The struggles were intensified by economic factors such as quarrels over gold resources and issues of tribal dynamics. A critical moment centered on the inclusion of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – which was led by Hemedti – into the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by Burhan.

Since the war began on April 15 2023, the fighting between the RSF and SAF has led to the deaths of at least 150,000 people, with 11 million displaced and a further 24 million in need of urgent food aid

The RSF has its roots in the brutal Janjaweed militia which fought in the aforementioned War of Darfur, used by al-Bashir’s governments to help the army quash a rebellion. The International Criminal Court tried government officials and militia commanders for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur. And still, the militia grew. In 2013 it was made into the RSF, and in 2015 it was granted the status of a regular force.

Since the war began on April 15 2023, the fighting between the RSF and SAF has led to the deaths of at least 150,000 people, with 11 million displaced and a further 24 million in need of urgent food aid. These staggering statistics place this war as what the UN has labelled as one of the “worst humanitarian crises in the world”.

The worst though, is yet to come. Food security organisations predict that from now to 2027 between six and ten million Sudanese could die from malnutrition, according to trends of the trajectory of the war and its impact on harvest, food routes, and water courses. These grim statistics show the overwhelming lack of successful foreign aid assisting Sudan.

The actions of both sides have resulted in difficulty in identifying, in crudely simplistic terms, a ‘good’ side and a ‘bad’ side. The SAF and RSF have both been accused of committing war crimes, bombing civilian areas, and even hospitals – some of the most despicable acts to have been carried out on either side. With that said, the RSF and Hemedti have been sanctioned by the US on account of purported genocide of the Massalit people and other non-arab groups in Sudan. Alongside this, they have also been carrying out a deliberate campaign of sexual violence and torture.

As the war now enters its third year, it is important to note that this longevity could not be achieved had it not been for the backing and assistance of other countries for their own gain. A major player thus far has been the United Arab Emirates. Backing for the RSF from the UAE has come in many forms, each as insidious and fraught with disaster as the last.

In 2022, in the Chadian border city of Amdjarass, the UAE established a seemingly innocuous field hospital. However, a UN investigation later uncovered credible evidence that the hospital served as something far more callous, a front for large-scale weapons and ammunition transfers. This revelation underscores the hugely influential role of financial interest in driving the conflict. Without Abu Dhabi’s $1.5 billion loan to Chad, it is unlikely Chad would have willingly supported the RSF as they continue to massacre the Zaghawa people, an ethnic group which comprises most of Chad’s military leadership

On top of the $1.5 billion loan to Chad, a further $35 billion investment into Egypt has kept Cairo, traditionally backers of the Sudan army, quiet during the conflict. Why then, is the UAE so fervently backing the RSF? Possibly Emirati leader Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed is simply repaying Hemedti for his assistance to the UAE during the Yemen war in the late 2010s.

A more concrete answer, however, may come down to the large volumes of gold in Sudan. Both the RSF and SAF have used gold to pay for resources but the RSF are more deeply involved in the gold trade – a trade that the UAE would greatly benefit from. The valuable commodity also sees Russia’s notorious Wagner group involved in smuggling gold out of Sudan, with the Kremlin hoping to establish a military base in Port Sudan.

This lack of intervention may serve to explain why there is just so little coverage of this war. The United States, despite having condemned what is happening in Sudan, named UAE as one of their biggest defence partners in 2024

There doesn’t appear to be a definitive reason for the UAE’s support, and although the US has slapped sanctions on some Emirati companies laundering Sudanese gold, foreign – particularly western – intervention has more or less stopped there.

This lack of intervention may serve to explain why there is just so little coverage of this war. The United States, despite having condemned what is happening in Sudan, named UAE as one of their biggest defence partners in 2024. As such, the US likely prioritises economic ties with the UAE due to major defence and tech exports into the region, perhaps explaining its reluctance to pressure the UAE into acting against Hemedti.

But the enormous scale of this abhorrent war needs to be more widely known and acknowledged around the globe. More coverage may lead to greater intervention and in two years of war, there has still been incredibly limited exposure.

Antony Loyd, a journalist at The Times, is one of the few who have been to Sudan to report on the war. In a Times podcast titled ‘On the frontline of Sudan’s forgotten war’ he cites potential explanations for the lack of western media coverage. This includes the practical, logistical aspect, of getting in and out of certain cities, gathering the right permissions, or finding yourself lost on the roads.

Whilst it’s understandable for Europeans to have a predominant focus on Ukraine, especially when the threat feels closer and therefore more imminent; this ‘cultural prejudice’ sounds a lot like racism

More crucially though, he acknowledges Gaza and the war in Ukraine as being at the forefront of the public consciousness, of a ‘cultural prejudice’ towards focusing on white Europeans. Whilst it’s understandable for Europeans to have a predominant focus on Ukraine, especially when the threat feels closer and therefore more imminent; this ‘cultural prejudice’ sounds a lot like racism. Even if the threat isn’t bound to spill into Europe, the media’s neglect of this war, when 150,000 lives have been taken and a famine as devastating as that experienced in Ethiopia in 1984 looms, is telling.

Whether there is significant geopolitical interest from the West or not, this is a war that should be reported on, if, for nothing else, the appalling death toll that shows little sign of slowing down.

The narrative of this war may not be as cut and dried as the public is used to. There is no one side that shares the values and vested interests of western superpowers. As a result, spectators find themselves watching a conflict that is more opaque and harder to digest. The reporting of such a vicious war is crucial. Documenting these atrocities and understanding international relations has the ability to influence major countries throughout the world.