On 23 February, Sudan’s RSF announced a self-declared ‘Government of Peace and Unity’, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis and territorial division in the country. This declaration follows a violent power struggle with the SAF and has garnered attention from international observers, highlighting the urgent need for a diplomatic resolution to Sudan’s ongoing conflict.
Amid emerging instability in Sudan, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced the establishment of a self-proclaimed ‘Government of Peace and Unity’ on 23 February, exacerbating the country’s turmoil. This announcement comes amidst allegations of war crimes and a humanitarian crisis that has displaced over 14 million civilians since conflict erupted in April 2023, suggesting a potential de facto partition of Sudan.
The RSF’s declaration deepens the existing fractures within Sudan, following its break from the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), which has wielded power since the 2019 revolution. The prior fragile coalition between the SAF and civilian groups has disintegrated amid escalating violence, leaving citizens vulnerable and democracy seemingly unattainable. The RSF formalized its governance framework through a charter signed in Nairobi, Kenya, reflecting ambitions to assert authority in regions like Darfur and Kordofan.
Dr. Suliman Baldo, Director of the Sudan Transparency and Policy Tracker, highlighted that the RSF’s new government could solidify Sudan’s territorial divides between RSF and SAF-controlled areas. Notably, the RSF has received support from political and armed figures, including Abdelaziz al-Hilu, who controls portions of South Kordofan, hinting at the establishment of a governance structure in western Sudan.
The RSF claims its charter promotes a “secular, democratic, decentralized state,” which would prioritize inclusivity across ethnic and cultural lines. Nonetheless, analysts suggest the charter may be an attempt to mitigate the group’s past atrocities documented by human rights organizations and the U.S. government’s classification of its actions as genocide. Critics argue the RSF utilizes propaganda to mask its violent history.
While some analysts liken Sudan’s current situation to Libya’s prolonged conflict, they caution that such a comparison overlooks Sudan’s complexities. Cameron Hudson from CSIS asserted that a de facto partition already exists, with substantial areas under RSF control, particularly in Darfur. He characterized the RSF’s proclamation as an effort for political legitimacy rather than a significant shift in the power balance, which remains heavily in favor of the SAF.
General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s SAF has condemned the RSF’s rival government, claiming it threatens national unity. Despite gaining some territory recently, the SAF’s ongoing military successes raise concerns of a solidified division across Sudan, which could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis significantly, leading to further instability.
Internationally, the response has been one of concern, with the United Nations warning that the RSF’s actions could increase fragmentation and worsen the crisis. Several MENA nations have likewise expressed alarm, condemning actions that threaten Sudan’s sovereignty and stability. Kenya, criticized for facilitating RSF meetings, defended its involvement as aligned with its peace mediation efforts.
Reports suggest that various powers have vested interests in the conflict; for instance, while aerial support has been provided to the SAF by countries including Iran and Turkey, the UAE is linked to the RSF’s funding. Furthermore, analysts believe international recognition for RSF governance is improbable due to its military setbacks and extensive human rights violations.
In summary, the RSF’s introduction of a rival government emphasizes existing political fractures and territorial divisions within Sudan. The international community’s largely passive response could allow this crisis to harden and transition into a more entrenched reality.
The announcement by the Rapid Support Forces of a rival government accentuates the prevailing divisions within Sudan, posing a significant threat to the nation’s territorial integrity. As the military balance remains largely in favor of the Sudanese Armed Forces, the potential for a de facto partition grows, illuminating the dire humanitarian crisis facing millions. The response of the international community will be critical in shaping Sudan’s future; continued inaction may reinforce these divisions and perpetuate the suffering of its citizens.
Original Source: www.newarab.com
