Trigger Warning: This article discusses mass killing and sexual assault. I debated what topic I wanted to write about for my article this week. I considered doing one on the ongoing Serbian protests, but my colleague Cristina Panaguta did a wonderful job with her column in last week’s edition. I was about to do a summary of the Russia-Ukraine war, but right before I started writing, breaking news of the Sudanese humanitarian crisis hit. The Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale’s School of Public Health published satellite images that provided evidence of mass killings outside the former Children’s Hospital in the east of El-Fasher, North Darfur. I was horrified at the evidence and slightly ashamed that Sudan’s civil war wasn’t something I have been keeping up to date on, and neither has Western media. Due to the fact that over 150,000 people have died and over 12 million have fled their homes, Sudan needs more coverage.
Sudan has an unfortunate history with violence. After it gained independence in 1956, the country has experienced 20 military coup attempts, the most of any African nation.
The focus of the most recent atrocities has been in Sudan’s western Darfur region. This area has experienced prolonged instability and social strife, in large part due to ethnic tensions and disputes over land and water. In 2003, this boiled over with a rebellion against the central government, led by then President Omar al-Basir. The resulting war in Darfur was marked by widespread state-sponsored acts of violence that left 300,000 dead and 2.7 million displaced. This is considered one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II. Although Western states condemned these actions, their response was limited and divided. For example, signatories of the International Criminal Court did not honor the ICC’s warrant of arrest for al-Bashir. One of the most important consequences from the 2003 conflict was al-Bashir’s reliance on the Janjaweed — a collection of Sudanese Arab militias led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (more commonly referred to as Hemedti) — for support. This group would later be the foundation for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Bashir passed a new law that gave Hemedti gold mines in exchange for RSF protection of the president. This position also allowed the RSF to develop a working relationship with the Russian private military outfit Wagner Group, who are infamous for their ineffectiveness and human rights misconduct in Africa and Ukraine.
Despite the RSF’s tight control, domestic protests led the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) to perform a coup d’état in April 2019. Protests extended from anti-al-Bashir to pro-civilian rule, which subsequently saw both groups perpetuate a massacre of over 100 protesters and the raping of dozens of people. A civilian-military joint government was established in August 2019, thanks to international pressure, but this was short lived, as a coup in 2021 led by the RSF and SAF restored military dominance over the government. However, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan — head of the SAF and the president of Sudan — and Hemedti could not come to an agreement on the power dynamics of an integrated SAF–RSF force. By April 2023, the most recent civil war that has seen what the UN describes as “one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century” broke out, leading us to the events of recent weeks.
In addition, this conflict has involved regional actors. Amnesty International has reported that China, Russia, Turkey, Yemen, the UAE, Egypt and Serbia have been sending weapons to the RSF. The UAE and Saudi Arabia specifically have been known for their support of the Arab-dominated RSF and their policy of marginalizing ethnic minorities for a stable government. Others, like the United Kingdom and Ukraine, have used this conflict as a proxy, with the former trying to build better relations with the UAE by facilitating weapons transfer and the latter by sending special forces to combat the Wagner Group and its allies.
Why is this issue not as prominent in our minds as Palestine? This is not a critique of the conflict in Gaza. However, I suspect many reasons for the lack of coverage of Sudan. One of them is the identity of the belligerent. Israel is a controversial topic, but they have a strong democratic institution and are widely seen as a ‘Western’ nation. By contrast, Sudan’s domestic politics has been dominated by its military. Secondly, race may be a factor. The African continent has historically been underreported by mainstream media, and only one off ‘significant’ events tend to make the front page. Finally, foreign interests in the region dictate that more news sources do not reach out. Nations do not want the instability of the region to spread to their own territories, and foreign governments are willing to back whoever can offer stability in the region, regardless of their human rights standard. Sudan is also rich in natural resources like oil and gold, which have already been prime targets for resource extractions, as seen by the Wagner Group’s involvement. Sudan also has strategic access to the Horn of Africa, which many nations want more influence over.
In a climate where it seems that individual voices are losing out to strategic interests, we sometimes feel powerless. But that’s not the case. We’ve seen people stand up and win (see my last article on youth movements around the world). Social media activism, combined with concrete action, has provided results.
This is not a fairy tale. There are no good sides here. However, we must try to spare those caught up in the conflict — defend the defenseless, protect the vulnerable. Sudan should not be exploited in the global geostrategic game. The people deserve better. All those suffering deserve better.
~ Roy Li `28
Be First to Comment