Sudan has become a textbook case of an international conflict. Since its outbreak in April, hostilities between Sudan's warring sides, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), have destabilized the entire region, increased the possibility of international intervention, and paved the way for a possible return of the former regime. Indeed, Sudan's conflict has shuffled the cards for both international and regional countries.

The outcome of the ongoing military operations will determine whether the situation in Sudan will be resolved or escalated. The winner in this conflict could usher in a new situation in the country. However, if the situation reaches a dead-end, regional or international players might take it upon themselves to intervene in Sudan, especially as the fighting gets out of control.

As the situation in Sudan becomes more complicated, the alternatives become slimmer. Three observations can be made about the ongoing conflict. First, RSF troops remain present in Khartoum despite the SAF's superior capabilities. Second, ceasefire efforts, including those proposed for the holy month of Ramadan and the Eid holiday, have failed. Finally, regional powers have maintained contact with both sides, with a priority to ensure the safe passage of foreigners. A collaborative and coordinated campaign among regional and international powers has succeeded in their evacuation mission.

Analysing the Conflict

Sudan's conflict reveals a power struggle between the leaders of the two sides: General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the SAF, and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemetti), leader of the RSF. The unresolved disagreement between these two leaders over power transition has led to an effective warfare in the country. On one hand, General al-Burhan wants to integrate the RSF into Sudan's army over the next 25 months, while on the other hand, Dagalo wants the assimilation to be carried out over a 10-year period, maintaining the division between the two-armed components for at least a decade. Thus, the outbreak appears to be a personal feud between the two leaders.

Digging deeper into the current situation, we can outline two dimensions that influence the ongoing conflict in Sudan, as summarized below:

1.   Historical Context:

Since independence in 1956, Sudan has experienced six coups and ten failed attempts, resulting in political instability. This instability reached its peak with the split between Sudan's north and south regions, leading to the formation of two separate states, each facing its own challenges.

Often referred to as a second Arab Spring, protests in Sudan were part of the wave of mass protests that swept the region. Many observers hoped that Sudanese protestors would learn from the mistakes of the first Arab Spring and avoid sliding into religious fascism. In early December 2018, millions of Sudanese people took to the streets. Political factions engaged in intensive meetings, and after months of debates, negotiations, and deliberations, a transitional period of three years that would culminate in a civilian government was agreed upon. The caretaker government-initiated negotiations to restructure outstanding debts with international creditors and fostered relations with Israel. However, Sudan couldn't avert sliding into an economic crisis. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization reported that more than a third of Sudan's population faces grave food insecurity due to climate change, political instability, and ongoing violence.

2.  Socio-political Composition:

Sudan exhibits a noticeable lack of national identity in the face of tribal allegiances, which has led to divisions within the country. Regional leaders view each other as rivals, contributing to the failure of the federal government and its institutions. This lack of a strong national identity will deeply influence Sudan's conflict and its regional ramifications.

Regional Implications

There are three scenarios for Sudan that will influence its relations with the region, which can be outlined as follows:

1.    If regional and international actors succeed in persuading the RSF and the SAF to agree on a ceasefire, implement a framework agreement for holding general elections, and restore stability to Sudan within a civil framework, then Sudan can shift its focus towards regional relations building, peace, security, and sustainable development. To a large extent, Sudan might follow a path similar to Iraq, where parties agreed to exclude extremist elements and focused on political and economic adjustments to improve the efficiency of governance.

2.   If the conflict continues and international powers become more involved, polarization between Russia, the US, and China deepens. These forces are likely to provide support, including weapons and aid, to their respective factions, leading to a further escalation of violence in Sudan and making it vulnerable to separatist movements, akin to the situation in Somalia.

3.   A potential scenario similar to the situation in Ethiopia, where conflict persists on local and regional levels, and the central government attempts to solidify its position through international and political means. In this scenario, Sudan could create issues with neighboring countries and become a destination for many migrants.

However, mass migration would not be the sole concern for neighboring countries. Sudan, one of Africa's largest countries in terms of area, would contribute to regional instability alongside the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia, and Somalia, adding to the already politically and economically unstable Sudan-Chad-Libya triad.

In any case, the collapse of Sudan would widen the scope of a potential terrorist haven, which would attract piracy, violence, and terrorism, thereby inviting further international intervention. Additionally, this situation exacerbates the threat to the Red Sea region and cannot be ignored or allowed to collapse. Therefore, in the current crisis, countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt have attempted to broker a ceasefire and have provided support for the evacuation efforts of diplomats and citizens.

The Option of Reform

The crisis in Sudan is not unprecedented in the region, as the Arab Spring has set a precedent for different types of regimes in the Arab world. There are two models that emerged from this experience. The first model, similar to Sudan's case, involves armed and violent conflicts fueled by ethnic divisions, resulting in cycles of bloodshed and ceasefires. This situation invites intervention by global powers that exploit the turmoil to further their own agendas in the region. The second model, having learned from past mistakes and lessons, realizes that a different future is necessary. These countries have become the "reformer" states, prioritizing sustainability and national security. They focus on reviving religious thinking and investing in the economy, technology, creativity, and innovation. Their aim is to establish regional peace and be part of modern progress. It can be argued that there is no viable third approach to dealing with the situation in the region. It is either building a sustainable platform that drives peace in Sudan or seeking temporary solutions that won't deliver long-term results.

The crisis in Sudan presents significant challenges. It was caused by a new wave of "revolutions" that raised hopes that lessons had been learned from past mistakes and tragedies. However, as soon as Bashir's regime collapsed, factions in Sudan resorted to dividing the military and civil components instead of building a united national front. This makes the road to peace and regional reform states ahead quite challenging.