Sudan’s Ongoing Conflict: Power Struggles and National Disunity

Sudan’s war enters its third year, marked by a struggle over identity and power between the national army and the Rapid Support Forces. The conflict has resulted in mass casualties, hunger, and displacement, deepening sectarian divides. Military leaders resist civilian governance, perpetuating a cycle of instability and military rule. The absence of strong institutions coupled with historic grievances complicates the path to national unity and democracy.

This week marks the commencement of the third year of war in Sudan, revealing the country’s struggles with national identity and power struggles within its military leadership. The conflict features a rivalry between the national army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), both claiming to fight for democracy while driven by personal ambitions. The conflict has taken a significant toll, with tens of thousands dead and over 26 million facing acute hunger, moving closer to famine conditions.

With approximately 12 million people displaced, experts anticipate the war transitioning into a low-intensity conflict that may persist for years and develop sectarian divisions, further undermining national unity. As the army appears to gain the upper hand, it raises concerns that the conflict may lead to another military strongman in General Abdel Fattah Al Burhan, whose promises of democracy contrast sharply with a history of military rule in Sudan.

Sanctions have been imposed by the U.S. Treasury on General Al Burhan, reflecting concerns over his role in destabilizing Sudan’s political landscape. Analysts suggest that the war is not ideologically driven but rather a quest for power, as military leaders express reluctance to relinquish control to civilians, viewing that cohort as unqualified to govern.

The persistent cycle of military coups in Sudan, marked by ambitious generals seeking control, has left the nation with fragile institutions and deep-rooted divisions. The atrocities of past conflicts continue to haunt the population, complicating future reconciliations. Both military leaders stand accused of perpetuating this cycle that has historically suppressed civilian governance and democracy.

Gen Al Burhan and RSF leader Gen Mohamed Dagalo, who initially joined forces against a civilian government, find themselves at odds as their rivalry escalates into violent conflict. The RSF’s heritage from the Janjaweed militia highlights ongoing issues of ethnic tensions that shape the current conflict.

Despite the military’s attempts to quell the RSF’s influence, the division of control marks a deep fracture within Sudan, highlighting the narrative of the RSF as supporters of marginalized populations in the west. Recent attacks by the RSF on economically significant areas underscore the ongoing volatility of the conflict, fueled by historical and tribal grievances that remain unresolved.

Sudanese leaders’ historical disregard for nation-building has resulted in a lack of effective state institutions, while lingering tribal rivalries continue to be exploited for political gains. The governance failures trace back to past leaders like Omar Al Bashir, who fostered divisions to maintain power.

Al Burhan’s actions echo this legacy, as he continues to recruit and empower militias associated with previous regimes, compounding challenges to achieving lasting peace and stability. Calls by regional powers for accountability suggest a broader demand for change amidst a landscape historically marred by internal strife and civil unrest.

Ultimately, the roots of Sudan’s crises lie in domestic policies rather than external influences, urging a reconsideration of accountability and governance structures to rectify historical injustices and pave the way for a more unified future.

In summary, the conflict in Sudan symbolizes a deeper struggle for identity and governance amidst a backdrop of military ambition. As the war continues into its third year, the humanitarian impact remains catastrophic, with millions affected. The cycle of military rule and civil strife suggests that overcoming Sudan’s challenges requires a fundamental re-evaluation of leadership and governance, focusing on long-term stability and national unity. The historical failures of leaders like Al Bashir and the current military hierarchies pose ongoing obstacles to genuine democratic progress and the establishment of effective state institutions.

Original Source: www.thenationalnews.com