The 18-month-old war in Sudan is growing more savage by the day, having spread to the four corners of the country. It involves all manner of violations and atrocities eroding the very fabric of the nation. The two warring sides, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and their respective allies are urging further escalation in the hope of a decisive victory. However, rifts and internal discord are destroying both camps from within.

Meanwhile, the voices of reasons have been warning that the conflict may devolve into a full-scale civil war, plunging the country into a deep, unfathomable abyss. They are calling for a third way that would exclude no one – an inclusive approach that would end the war through dialogue and negotiation. In fact, opinions about ways to end the crisis are sharply divided in Sudan.

One group believes the only way forward is for the SAF to crush the RSF, arguing that any truce with the RSF will be fleeting and rejecting the idea of sitting down across one table with those who have been spilling Sudanese blood and destroying the country. Another group feels that true stability and peace can only be achieved by eradicating the “Kizan”—the term used for Sudanese Islamists, whom they hold responsible for fuelling this war. Some, however, see the conflict as part of a larger regional and international effort targeting the Sudanese state itself, a scheme aimed at fracturing the nation that will persist relentlessly.

The camp advocating for dialogue and negotiations says talks will help stay the bloodshed, build a unified, professional army and a state founded on citizenship, peaceful coexistence, and national cohesion. This group believes this course is vital to safeguarding the lives of millions of Sudanese facing death, starvation, disease, and oppression, and preserving the unity, stability, and resources of Sudan. On the ground, meanwhile, the battles are intensifying, with severe violations of civilian rights, particularly in Al-Jazeera State. Large parts of Al-Jazeera have been overtaken by the RSF following the defection of one of its leaders, Abu Aqla Kikil, who joined the SAF, leaving civilians to face death. Condemnation of RSF atrocities in Al-Jazeera has surged, with calls urging both sides to engage in dialogue to reach a political resolution that could end the conflict.

Yet the proliferation of arms has reached unprecedented levels, sparking fears of a full-scale civil war. This prompted Malik Agar, vice president of the Sovereignty Council, to warn that while the spread of arms endangers the lives of millions of Sudanese, giving weapons to any forces always leads to the rebellion of these forces against the state.

Internationally, calls are growing louder for urgent action to protect Sudanese civilians, including the potential deployment of international forces to separate the SAF and RSF. In its recent session, the UN Security Council discussed the possibility of deploying a joint mission led by the African Union to aid in civilian protection. However, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cautioned that current conditions are unsuitable for a UN force deployment in Sudan, warning that the country faces a nightmare scenario of violence, hunger, disease, displacement, and escalating ethnic conflict, with serious implications for regional stability.

In his report, Guterres stated that Sudan’s suffering deepens by the day, with 25 million people now in need of aid. He detailed the horrific atrocities inflicted on the Sudanese people, including widespread killing and rape. He also mentioned the severe risk of hunger, the rapid spread of diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and rubella, and the escalating crisis caused by the collapse of the healthcare system amid the war. Over 11 million Sudanese have been displaced, he noted.

Guterres’ remarks were seen by some as further evidence of the UN’s inability to protect civilians in Sudan and other conflict zones. The potential deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan faces multiple challenges, including likely vetoes from China and Russia in the Security Council, as well as issues surrounding funding and the mission’s mandate. Furthermore, deploying international forces into such a volatile conflict without a peace agreement in place could entangle them in active hostilities rather than peacekeeping, making them potential targets for all factions.

In the meantime, Abdallah Hamdok, head of the Coordination of Civil Democratic Forces “Progress,” led a delegation on a visit to the UK. He said that Sudan is facing an unprecedented catastrophe that threatens its very existence. He condemned the forces that had controlled Sudan’s resources for 30 years, undermining its institutions, assets, and potential. He said there were two camps: one representing peace, democracy, and freedom, and the other embodying war and destruction, asserting that war offers no path forward. During his meetings in London, Hamdok outlined his top priorities as achieving a ceasefire, addressing the humanitarian crisis, safeguarding civilians, and ultimately initiating a comprehensive political process to end the conflict. He reiterated the need for a monitoring mechanism in Sudan and proposed the consideration of a no-fly zone to establish safe areas in the country.

Hamdok stated the need to discuss deploying ground troops to protect civilians, calling on the international community to increase pressure on both warring sides for an immediate ceasefire and to support efforts towards a peaceful resolution. Hamdok’s stance led SAF loyalists to stage demonstrations against his delegation, chanting slogans in opposition in a bid to disrupt the UK visit.

At the African Union level, many have expressed the hope that the recent visit by the Peace and Security Council delegation to Port Sudan — and their meeting with Lieutenant General Abdel-Fattah Al-Burhan, chairman of the Sovereignty Council, along with other Sudanese officials — could signal a reversal of Sudan’s suspended membership in the regional organisation. Sudan’s suspension from the African Union was imposed after Al-Burhan dissolved the partnership with the civilian government, a move the African Union deemed a coup. However, it appears that certain conditions must still be met before the membership freeze can be lifted, notably a transfer of power to a civilian authority. Divergences remain among African Union member states regarding Sudan’s reinstatement, and the union itself is undergoing leadership renewal, with elections scheduled for February.

In the meantime, Al-Burhan was in Cairo to take part in the World Urban Forum and meet with President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi. Egypt has been actively engaged on multiple fronts to help end the war and mend divisions within Sudan, fully aware that it will be the first to feel the impact of the conflict’s devastating consequences. Cairo is focused on finding a path to rescue Sudan from its current crisis, avoiding entanglement in disputes or responses to allegations regarding its involvement in the war. Egypt’s commitment is driven by a cause greater than these claims, centred on pursuing a lifeline for Sudan’s recovery. Should the crisis persist, its implications would spell disaster not only for Sudan but for the entire region.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 7 November, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly