The media around the world has showed foreign citizens boarding military aircraft or warships and being safely evacuated from Sudan after the clashes between the country’s two rival generals intensified.
Footage of flag-waving evacuees welcomed at docks or on airport tarmac or scenes of servicewomen cradling babies during the evacuations have been seen on television across the world in demonstrations of an inflated sense of bravado and assumed national leverage.
There have also been the evacuations of diplomatic missions by countries that have made urgent plans to extract their staff by military aircraft from Khartoum in daring rescue operations.
But while diplomats and foreign nationals have been hurried out of the beleaguered country, Sudanese civilians have largely been left either to fend for themselves or to scramble to escape from the nightmare.
It is common practice in modern-day evacuations for foreign powers to save their nationals first in a life-threatening situation, though help is usually also expected to be given to the most vulnerable like the injured, the elderly, or children.
However, amid the ceasefire violations and continued violence Sudanese civilians have been abandoned in deteriorating and deadly conditions, with fear and confusion pushing their displacement and causing a wave of refugees to flee abroad.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ferocious violence has showed how little the international community was prepared to deal with the looming catastrophe in Sudan after the “transition to democracy” that followed the popular uprising in 2019 ended in chaos.
Fighting erupted in the middle of April amid a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the government-affiliated Rapid Support Forces (RSF) after mediators from Africa, the US, and Europe failed to broker a deal to end Sudan’s political crisis.
Intense clashes between SAF forces loyal to Abdel-Fattah Al-Burhan, the country’s de facto ruler, and former warlord Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, have killed hundreds of people and sent thousands fleeing for safety.
The two generals collaborated in seizing power following the popular uprising in 2019 that ousted long-time Sudanese dictator Omar Al-Bashir when Al-Burhan headed a Transitional Military Council and Hemedti became his deputy.
Despite calls from international groups and governments to the two generals to cease the hostilities and engage in negotiations for a settlement, the violence has continued in Khartoum and many parts of Sudan, especially in the war-ravaged region of Darfur.
As the two factions continue battling for control and the country is thrown into violent chaos, the humanitarian situation especially in Khartoum continues to dramatically deteriorate.
People in cities across Sudan are trapped in their homes facing severe shortages of food, water, electricity, fuel, medical services and limited communications. Some continue to be forced from their homes by soldiers and suffer from looting and extortion.
In Darfur, local armed militias have rampaged through towns in the war-ravaged region battling each other and looting shops, houses, warehouses, offices, and targeting by-standers.
As the fighting continues despite several ceasefires, tens of thousands of civilians have begun fleeing their homes, many seeking sanctuary across the border in neighbouring Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, Libya and South Sudan.
A total collapse of the present truce would lead to a deepening of the divides or even to a full-blown civil war in Sudan that observers fear would be the beginning of nightmare situation that could trigger a huge displacement movement and a massive exodus abroad.
There are worrying signs that the international community might not be prepared for the influx of Sudanese refugees, when according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights there could be “hundreds of thousands” fleeing their country.
There are also increasing fears that the UN and the international community are not ready to bear the political and financial cost of the potential refugee problem and will instead expect it to be dealt with by Sudan’s neighbours who are already feeling the strain of their own recent political and economic upheavals.
Depending on the severity of the situation, a mass exodus of Sudanese will further pressure the capacity of neighbouring countries, adding to the strain on their overstretched public services and even creating some geopolitical backlash.
This warrants swift action on two fronts in order to avoid triggering a rapid reconfiguration of the region’s migration system and hitting its fragile political order and emerging economies.
On the one hand, the international community should work in conjunction with governments in the region on the temporary protection and aid for the Sudanese that explicitly ensures that they stay in their country and minimise their flight abroad.
For this purpose, temporary safe heavens should be established in parts of Sudan that are far from the war zones and where displaced people can be provided with shelter, security, healthcare, education and adequate food support.
Despite the challenges it poses for regional and international stakeholders, this could be a temporary alternative to accommodate the thousands of women, men, and children who have been forced to flee their homes in Sudan in search of protection.
Compared to other crises on a global scale, such as in Syria in 2012, the sheer numbers of Sudanese refugees are not as daunting. But even if the neighbouring countries are welcoming the Sudanese at this stage, signs of fatigue and political and economic pressure could emerge and create pushbacks.
Unfortunately, the international community has showed no signs of mobilising to manage the emerging crisis, and no humanitarian organisations are deploying in cities considered as safe in Sudan in order to provide shelter, aid, and healthcare.
A coordinated regional and international humanitarian strategy is still missing, even though this will be essential if the fighting goes on and refugees continue to try to reach safer soil.
On the other hand, efforts should also be made to push for a negotiated solution to the crisis in Sudan. While catering to the refugee dilemma is necessary, the world should start examining diplomatic options for finding an end to the deadly conflict that is rumbling on for a third week before it slides towards an all-out civil war.
Before the eruption of the present fighting, Sudan’s neighbours, the UN, and the world powers were working to broker a political transition in the country to bring about stability after a second coup in 2021 that followed the massive uprising that overthrew Al-Bashir.
Attempts by the UN, the African Union (AU), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the Quad group on Sudan that comprises Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the US and the UK, to bring about the promised transition to democracy have come to nothing.
There have been few signs of diplomatic efforts to resolve the Al-Burhan-Hemedti crisis despite offers from some neighbouring nations. The two generals have repeatedly refused to engage in peace talks, trading the blame with each other for the conflict.
The road to the current crisis was paved by the failure of international and regional diplomacy despite months of heightened tensions between the two sides and repeated warnings about outbreaks of violence.
As the UN and Western diplomatic offensives failed to yield dividends, the AU and IGAD efforts have also reached an impasse. Nearly three weeks into the conflict, the two groups, which seem to be the only available mediation mechanism, have failed to secure agreements from the warning generals to meet and cease hostilities.
The Arab League, which has proved ineffective in many previous regional conflicts, has so far not allied itself with peace-brokers or make an initiative of its own to embark on a pan-Arab platform that focuses on discussing a possible future peace process.
Probably unsurprisingly, the Arab League, which has proved ineffective in previous conflicts, has so far not allied itself with peace-brokers by embarking on a pan-Arab platform focused on discussing a possible future peace process.
The Cairo-based League has not met for high-level discussions on the escalation in Sudan, a member state, which is unprecedented in many ways. The issue has not even been placed on the agenda of an Arab leadership summit scheduled in Saudi Arabia next week.
However, with no let-up in the clashes between the two rival factions battling for influence in Sudan, the violence is now echoing the conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, particularly in the prospect of a prolonged Civil War and communal divisions.
Sudan is in a volatile region bordering several countries with already flaring hotspots. Major geopolitical considerations are at play, with China, Russia, the US, the EU and other regional powers battling for influence in the country.
It is not an option for regional and international stakeholders to let Sudan collapse in turmoil and the Sudanese people to be drenched in blood. Diplomacy should not be deferred to some point in the future. It needs to be going on at the same time as the fighting continues.
Much of the focus now is on the refugee problem, but the humanitarian and political approaches should continue hand-in-hand in any attempt to seek peace in Sudan.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 4 May, 2023 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: