The Sudanese Crisis and the Widening Gap Between National and International Solutions

 

 

Mahmoud Hussein Sari

Since the outbreak of war in Sudan in April 2023, Sudanese society and the Sudanese state have been living through one of the most difficult periods in their modern history—marked by deep divisions, fragmentation, and disagreement over how to manage, resolve, and ultimately overcome the crisis.

The main causes of this situation can be traced to three key factors.

Absence of a Unifying National Project

First, there is no national project capable of uniting the Sudanese people. Instead, the country has become divided between two competing visions.

The first is the “War of Dignity” project, which sees the continuation of the war as the path to restoring the state.

The second is the “No to War” project, which advocates ending the conflict and restoring the political order to what existed prior to October 2021.

Fragmentation of International and Regional Initiatives

The second factor lies in the fragmentation of international and regional initiatives. There are now more than thirteen international envoys, each pursuing their own approach, alongside over six initiatives, none of which have succeeded in presenting a comprehensive vision or an accurate diagnosis of the crisis.

Most international efforts have focused primarily on humanitarian ceasefires, aid delivery, and the launch of civilian political dialogue—initiatives that often serve the agendas of facilitators and international envoys rather than Sudan’s national interests.

Reliance on External Support

The third factor behind the widening divide between national and international approaches is the tendency of fragile civilian political actors in Sudan to seek support from the international community or from armed forces on the ground.

Some factions rely on international initiatives to resolve the crisis, while others attempt to impose political realities through the Sudanese Armed Forces or the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The Consequences of the Divide

As Sudan continues to experience this political struggle and growing gap between national and international solutions, the country is increasingly sliding towards fragmentation and potential partition.

At the same time, the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate dramatically. Ongoing military attacks, rising famine, and the spread of disease have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. Millions have been displaced and are living in extremely harsh conditions, while refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries face economic pressure and, in some cases, hostility.

Bridging the Gap

Resolving the crisis requires greater effort from both Sudanese authorities and international actors, as well as from political supporters of the Sudanese Armed Forces, which many consider the legitimate institution responsible for protecting the country during this period.

Dialogue and engagement are essential to bridging the gap between nationally proposed solutions and internationally proposed frameworks.

Disagreements Over the Humanitarian Crisis

One major point of disagreement concerns the definition of the humanitarian crisis.

Many international initiatives—including those led by the so-called Quad—frame the crisis primarily as a humanitarian issue requiring immediate intervention. The Sudanese government, however, argues that the humanitarian crisis primarily occurs in areas under rebel control.

According to the government’s view:

Rebel forces prevent civilians from fleeing to areas under army control.

The international community has failed to enforce UN decisions to lift the siege on El Fasher, contributing to famine and alleged acts of genocide against its inhabitants.

International actors have failed to prevent the flow of weapons into Darfur.

The government also accuses rebel forces of exploiting humanitarian corridors to transport weapons and mercenaries.

Furthermore, Sudanese authorities claim that some international humanitarian organisations receive financial and diplomatic support despite lacking proper registration, and that such organisations may serve as extensions of political groups sympathetic to the rebellion.

From this perspective, the government argues that the humanitarian discourse promoted internationally is politicised and used to pursue broader political objectives.

Disagreements Over Political Roadmaps

A second point of contention concerns the political roadmap.

The Sudanese Armed Forces have proposed a roadmap for implementing the Jeddah Agreement, yet, according to Sudanese officials, the international community has shown little interest in it while attempting to create alternative negotiation platforms.

Similarly, the peace initiative presented by Prime Minister Kamil Idris at the United Nations Security Council last year received initial support from several countries and organisations but has since been shelved without further follow-up.

Who Represents Sudan?

Another major dispute revolves around representation.

International actors remain divided over which entity represents Sudan:

The official government protected by the Sudanese Armed Forces,

The parallel government in Nyala backed by the RSF, or

Political groups in exile such as “Somoud”, which claim revolutionary legitimacy after what they describe as the 2021 coup.

The Role of the UAE

The presence of the United Arab Emirates in various international initiatives is another contentious issue. The Sudanese Armed Forces accuse the UAE of financing and supporting the rebellion, making its participation in mediation efforts highly controversial within Sudan.

The Future of the RSF

There is also disagreement over the future of the Rapid Support Forces.

The Sudanese government considers the RSF to have become an illegal rebel militia after its uprising in April 2023, and claims it has been formally dissolved by law. Despite this, international actors continue to engage with representatives and political affiliates of the RSF.

Some Sudanese officials argue that the RSF continues to fight with advanced Western weapons acquired through neighbouring countries with Western approval, while many international actors maintain neutrality between the army and the RSF.

Competing Narratives of the Conflict

Another point of disagreement concerns how the conflict is defined.

From the government’s perspective, the war is the result of a military rebellion by the RSF against the Sudanese state, supported regionally by the UAE and Israel and tolerated by Western powers.

Other interpretations portray the conflict differently:

As a struggle between Islamists and secularists.

As a power struggle between two generals: Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti).

As a regional geopolitical competition involving the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt.

Or even as part of a broader international power contest involving the United States, Europe, Russia, and China.

As long as there is no consensus—domestically or internationally—on the nature and causes of the conflict, the war is likely to continue.

Disagreements Over Political Dialogue

Further divisions concern the role of political groups such as Somoud, which some Sudanese view as part of an international project to reshape Sudan’s political order and as closely aligned with the RSF.

This raises another critical question: who should participate in the next Sudanese national dialogue after a ceasefire?

Advocates of national solutions argue that the dialogue should be:

A purely Sudanese process,

Managed by Sudanese actors,

Open to all Sudanese citizens except those wanted for corruption, murder, or serious international crimes.

International Justice vs National Reconciliation

The final major point of disagreement concerns international justice.

The international community demands that Sudan hand over individuals from the regime of former President Omar al-Bashir to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and open the country to wide-ranging investigations into crimes attributed to both the army and the RSF.

Some international actors also question the loyalty of senior military officers who served under the previous Islamic political system.

By contrast, national approaches emphasise dialogue, reconciliation, amnesty, and compensation, while strengthening Sudanese judicial institutions so that justice can be pursued domestically through national bodies such as:

The Human Rights Commission,

The Anti-Corruption Commission,

The National Service Commission,

The Humanitarian Aid Commission.

Conclusion

The gap between national and international approaches to resolving the Sudanese crisis remains wide.

Bridging this gap requires sustained dialogue—particularly through Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, diplomatic missions abroad, national media, and Sudanese diaspora communities. Political parties committed to defending the Sudanese state and its legitimate institutions also play a crucial role.

Sudanese officials must continue engaging with international partners, explaining the crisis, and advocating national solutions that protect Sudan’s unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

There is no alternative to dialogue. Sudanese actors must persistently open channels of communication at every regional and international forum and insist that the solution to Sudan’s crisis must ultimately be crafted within Sudan itself.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=11947