Since the outbreak of war in Sudan in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the “Rapid Support Forces”, the crisis has transformed from an internal power struggle into a complex regional and international issue in which political, economic and security interests are intertwined.
Over the past three years, the international community has not adopted a unified stance on the war. Clear differences have emerged in how the conflict is addressed, ranging from humanitarian calls for a ceasefire to political mediation efforts, economic sanctions, and mutual accusations of direct and indirect military support for certain warring parties. This inconsistency has profoundly impacted the course of the conflict, contributing in one way or another to its prolongation and complicating the prospects for a stable political settlement.
In this context, Professor of Political Science, Musab Muhammad Ali, told Al-Quds Al-Arabi that the Sudanese war was clearly affected by international positions, whether through political and diplomatic support, or through mediations and humanitarian aid, or through the threat of sanctions.
Musab believes that the international community's stance has helped keep the war within the global spotlight and opened the door to political settlements that would end the state of war.
But at the same time, he points out that the influence of the international community has remained limited due to conflicting international interests and the absence of a unified position capable of pushing for an end to the war.
He pointed out that the war has become part of the conflict over resources, and some international parties are seeking to impose their influence in the region through Sudan and see that the state of war helps them in this, including resources and the Red Sea.
Musab believes that the international community's stance has helped keep the war on the global agenda and opened the door to political settlements that could end the conflict. However, a lack of internal will hinders the international community's positive role in addressing the war in Sudan, leading to its continuation.
He explained that recent statements from the Sudanese Foreign Ministry reflect a clear trend toward supporting the shift in international discourse toward Khartoum's policies and its political and military narrative regarding the war, through condemning attacks on civilians and emphasizing Sudan's sovereignty and territorial integrity. He linked the continuation of the war to foreign interventions and the designation of the Rapid Support Forces as a terrorist organization. This means that the conflict is no longer solely military but has taken on a diplomatic dimension.
Since the beginning of the war, international and regional actors have rushed to launch ceasefire initiatives. The United Nations, the African Union, and IGAD called for a humanitarian truce and a return to the negotiating table, while Saudi Arabia and the United States sponsored the Jeddah talks between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces. However, these efforts failed to achieve a real breakthrough, as the declared ceasefires quickly collapsed and the fighting resumed with even greater intensity.
The conflict is no longer just a limited political or military dispute, but has transformed into a multi-dimensional war encompassing economic influence and control over resources.
This is due to the lack of trust between the warring parties, in addition to the weakness of international pressure tools, as well as the multiplicity of initiatives and the competition among the mediators themselves to manage the Sudanese file.
The very nature of the war has complicated reaching a settlement. The conflict is no longer merely a limited political or military dispute, but has transformed into a multidimensional war encompassing economic influence, control of resources, and domination of ports and strategic areas, in addition to competition for political legitimacy both domestically and internationally. For this reason, observers believe that some regional and international powers view Sudan as a crucial sphere of influence in the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea region, a perspective reflected in their stances on the war.
Over the past few years, several external parties have been accused of providing various forms of military or logistical support to the warring factions, either directly or through complex regional networks. International reports have documented the arrival of weapons and ammunition to the parties to the conflict via neighboring countries or regional allies, while the accused states have officially denied any involvement in supporting any side. Furthermore, UN reports have indicated potential violations of the arms embargo in some areas of Sudan, particularly the Darfur region, which has further complicated the crisis and diminished the prospects for containing the conflict.
This reality has led to successive shifts in the positions of some countries and organizations, depending on military developments or immediate political calculations. At certain times, international powers focus on the necessity of a ceasefire and the protection of civilians, only to later revert to focusing on issues of influence, regional balances, or combating illegal immigration and terrorism. This vacillation has created the impression among large segments of the Sudanese population that the international community is dealing with the crisis according to its own interests rather than out of genuine concern for ending the war.
The United States and the European Union adopted a discourse that focused on human rights abuses and the need to hold those responsible accountable.
The United States and the European Union adopted a discourse focused on human rights violations and the need to hold those responsible accountable. Washington imposed sanctions on individuals and companies linked to both warring parties. Western reports also condemned widespread abuses against civilians, particularly in Darfur, Khartoum, and displacement camps. However, these sanctions failed to stop the war or decisively shift the balance of power, as the warring parties continued to receive political and economic support from other powers, in addition to the persistence of the parallel economy linked to gold and cross-border trade.
In contrast, some regional states adopted a more cautious policy, attempting to maintain relations with various Sudanese factions in anticipation of future developments. This led to political ambiguity, with some positions appearing duplicitous; on the one hand, they declared their support for a peaceful solution and Sudanese unity, while on the other, they were accused of turning a blind eye to the flow of weapons or funding, or of providing indirect support to certain parties.
A significant aspect of the Sudanese war is that the Red Sea has become a factor in international calculations related to the conflict. Sudan occupies a strategically vital location on the western coast of the Red Sea, making it a focal point for regional and international powers seeking to bolster their military and commercial influence in the region. Therefore, the continuation of the war is not solely linked to the internal power struggle, but is intertwined with broader international competition over ports, trade routes, energy resources, and maritime security.
The Red Sea has become part of international calculations related to the conflict.In his interview with, Ali asserts that the Sudanese war has become part of the struggle for resources and influence in the region, noting that some international actors see the continuation of the war as an opportunity to strengthen their political and economic presence within Sudan. He also believes that the absence of a unified internal will limits the effectiveness of any positive role the international community could play, because a final solution cannot be imposed entirely from the outside without internal Sudanese consensus.
From a humanitarian perspective, the war revealed the limitations of the international response compared to the scale of the disaster. The United Nations described the Sudanese crisis as one of the world's largest humanitarian crises, with millions of Sudanese displaced and seeking refuge in neighboring countries, and large parts of the health and service systems collapsing. At the same time, aid organizations faced significant difficulties in delivering assistance due to ongoing fighting, and humanitarian convoys and aid workers were subjected to direct attacks or looting.
International divisions also hampered the adoption of more decisive stances within international institutions. In the UN Security Council, for example, the major powers failed to reach a comprehensive consensus on binding mechanisms to end the war, due to differing priorities among influential states. While some countries focused on protecting civilians, others prioritized maintaining their regional balances or their economic and military interests.
In recent times, the Sudanese government has moved to strengthen its foreign diplomatic discourse by focusing on the concepts of national sovereignty and rejecting foreign interference.
In recent times, the Sudanese government has intensified its diplomatic efforts abroad, emphasizing national sovereignty and rejecting foreign interference, while attempting to convince the international community that the continuation of the war is linked to external support received by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Khartoum has also called for the RSF to be designated a terrorist organization, a move reflecting a shift in the nature of the conflict from a purely military confrontation on the ground to a political and diplomatic struggle on the international stage.
Conversely, other parties are trying to present themselves as open to political solutions, accusing the army of prolonging the war by rejecting certain initiatives or clinging to the military option. This political and diplomatic wrangling has led the international community to grapple with multiple and conflicting narratives, making it difficult to reach a unified vision for a solution.
Although diplomatic initiatives are ongoing, humanitarian organizations are still pressing for the opening of humanitarian corridors, and some countries continue to call for the resumption of negotiations as the only option to end the war, experience over the past years has shown that the international community, despite its intensive presence, has not been able to play a decisive role in ending the war.
Tags:
africa
