What Is Happening in Sudan?

When diving into the international order surrounding the Hamas–Israel war, countries are deploying major efforts to ensure a truce or at least a permanent ceasefire. Qatar, Egypt… everyone is involved. This got me thinking: why is no international actor making a truce initiative in Sudan, a conflict that has been tearing the country apart for decades?

How did the Sudan civil war start?

To understand the international actors involved in the Sudan war, we must first revisit the history of the conflict.

Like many African countries, Sudan did not escape European occupation. In 1897, the British government concluded that conquering Sudan was the only efficient way to keep the French away from the Nile. By 1924, Britain decided to divide Sudan into two territories, essentially two different identities:

• the north, mostly Arabic-speaking Muslims.
• the south, largely Christians and animists who spoke English.

Sudan’s immense ethnic diversity also played a major role in fueling tension. With more than 500 ethnic groups, divisions between Arab tribes and sub-Saharan tribes shaped decades of instability.

In 2003, the non-Arab from the region of Darfur decided to launch an armed rebellion against Bashir’s Arab-dominated government, who responded by preparing militias from his communities to fight the rebellion known as the Janjaweed.

The Janjaweed carried out a genocide against non-Arab communities, killing over 300,000 people and setting fire to hundreds of entire villages. In 2023, Bashir’s government rebranded the Janjaweed to be now known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) with Hemeti as the actual leader.

Now here is where it gets confusing: the RSF is considered a paramilitary force, that was separate from the actual Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) with Abdel Fattah al-Burhan as a leader, the other player in today’s war. The two forces were initially on the same side, both parts of the Sudan military system under President Bashir’s presidency.

In 2019, big pro-democracy protests against Bashir’s government erupted. Within the next weeks, both the RSF and the SAF removed him from power, creating huge hope among civilians who were dreaming of a civilian-led democratic government. The phase after Bashir was considered a bit tense and decisive, between parties who led the pro-democracy protests and the military leadership.

In 2021, al-Burhan took over power in Sudan, turning down the power-sharing deal with the group of civilians. Then the power game was now between Hemeti from the RSF and al-Burhan from the SAF. Both parties wanted power so much that the only way to take it was to eliminate the other, and that’s how the world’s largest humanitarian crisis started.

Both parties targeted civilians, killing thousands od people, and more than 12 millions sudaneese displaced, sexual violence have been used as a war weapon, famine has emerged, and no types of aid was getting in.

Who funds the RSF and the SAF ?

Now, moving to the international players: The SAF is mainly funded and supported by Türkiye, Iran, Russia, and China. Meanwhile, the RSF is funded by the United Arab Emirates.

It is also important to mention that in 2004, the UN Security Council imposed an arms embargo banning the export of weapons to Darfur, yet both the SAF and RSF continue to acquire weapons.

Both rely heavily on gold to fund their supply chains, from buying arms to maintaining operations.

Why is no international actor trying to stop the war in Sudan?

Although it has denied any form of arms support to the RSF, the UAE is now considered the primary export destination for Sudanese gold, a resource that funds a large part of the RSF’s operations against civilians. The gold is transported through complex smuggling routes across Darfur, Chad, and Libya before reaching the Gulf, where it enters legal and global markets.

On the other side, the SAF maintains ties with Iran, Türkiye, and Russia, each of which sees Sudan as a strategic ally along the Red Sea. Their involvement supplies the SAF with drones and political backing, allowing the war to continue with little external pressure for de-escalation.

Therefore, international actors have economic and geopolitical interests that outweigh any incentive to push for a truce in the region. In other words, political interests are valued far more than the lives of innocent Sudanese civilians who suffer the consequences, which, unfortunately, is not surprising at all within the current international order.

The war in Sudan is often portrayed as an internal struggle, yet it is deeply shaped by the geopolitical and economic interests of external powers. As the SAF and RSF continue to receive indirect support from international actors, the conflict remains far from resolution, leaving millions of Sudanese trapped in the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.