The Conflict and Humanitarian Crisis in Sudan

Olympia World Affairs Council

Global Update March 2025

Gary Walker, OWAC Board Member

In ancient times, Sudan was collectively called Nubia or Kush by the Egyptians and, later, the land was called bilād al-sūdān (“land of the blacks”) by medieval Arabic geographers. Later, the region was infiltrated by Christian and Islamic missionaries. Then the Ottoman and British empires invaded and occupied Sudan with the British remaining in control under Sudan’s independence in 1956. It’s wealth comes from a mix of natural resources such as natural gas, oil, gold, silver, and various minerals. Sudan is the third largest exporter of gold in Africa.

Since its independence in 1956, Sudan has been plagued by internal conflicts, coups, and the failure of numerous civilian governments. These include the First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972), the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005), and the War in Darfur (2003–2010). South Sudan seceded from Sudan on July 9, 2011 after years of guerilla warfare by the Southern Sudanese.

This history of violence in Sudan reached back to the 1950s and can be attributed to a lethal mix of ethnic, religious, and politically motivated violence. The northern regions of Sudan are primarily Islamic while the southern regions are largely Christian or traditional African religions. This north-south divide also has an ethnic component to it as well. Money and resources have been focused primarily on the northern regions, especially Khartoum. Meanwhile, the southern region contains an abundance of the country’s natural resources but has been deprived of most developmental resources and support. The political drive to obtain and benefit from these natural resources has led to a militarization of the region and of the ethnic groups dwelling there. These historical factors are still driving the violence in the country today.  

This history of violence extends to South Sudan as well as it sought to gain its independence. This quest for independence was ongoing from the 1970s until it gained its independence in 2011. South Sudan has a wealth of natural resources, especially oil, minerals, diamonds, and agriculture. However, it remains one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world. The violence in this young country still continues as different groups compete for power and control.

The current, on-going conflict had its genesis in 2019 when the Sudanese military launched a coup that overthrew the Sudanese President and government. This coup led to a military government which then split apart in April 2023 into two factions: the Sudanese military (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces ( RSF). The two forces have been locked in an on-going conflict until the present day. Islamic ideology may have had some influence on this coup and the ongoing conflict but was driven by a thirst for power and control of the country’s natural resources, particularly petroleum and gold.

Neither the SAF nor the RSF seem to be willing to negotiate or relinquish any of their power. The RSF has recently even announced in Nairobi, Kenya that it was forming a separate government to oversee the territory that it controls. The situation is exacerbated by the ongoing influence and support of other governments in the region and in the Arabian Gulf. Egypt, Eritrea, and Iran are principal supports of the SAF, while the United Arab Emirates, and Israel back the RSF.

Russia has tried to profit by obtaining access to Sudan’s natural resources by trying to maintain influence on both belligerents. They have also just signed a treaty with the Sudanese government to have port access at Port Sudan. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has tried to use this conflict as a means to increase its political influence in the region. Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Sudan have tried to end the conflict to keep it from spilling over into their countries.

As of today, there does not seem to be a viable and humanitarian end to the Sudanese conflict in the near term. Both the SAF and RSF seem to be willing to see the total destruction of Sudan rather than to find a compromise that would end the war or result in their loss of power prestige.

As a result, the Sudanese conflict has developed into the world’s largest and most comprehensive  humanitarian and human rights crisis and continues to grow worse every day. Here are just a few examples of the ongoing effects on a Sudanese population of approximately 50 million:

·      12.5 million people are internally displaced and 3.4 million people becoming refugees

·      24.6 million people are facing acute hunger and 637,000 people are facing famine. This is particularly acute for children due to the adverse impact that acute hunger and famine will have on a child’s development.

·      Over 150,000 people have been killed as a result of the fighting.

·      Numerous women and children (as young as one year old) are facing or have experienced sexual violence to include rape, forced marriage, and sexual assault. For example, the number of reported cases of sexual violence against children from 2022 to present has increased by 473%.

·      Lack of health facilities is resulting in an increasing risk of diseases such as cholera, dengue fever, and malaria. This is in addition to lack of treatment for famine, injury from military violence, and other ailments and conditions.

·      Untold numbers of incidents of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other war crimes are being perpetrated by both sides in the conflict. Also, it has been reported that the SAF has used chemical weapons on at least two occasions.

The U.S. Government’s decision to suspend foreign aid has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. The funds coming through USAID account for 44% of the $1.8 billion flowing into Sudan to counter the humanitarian crisis. As a result, 80% of the approximately 1,460 community kitchens supplying emergency food assistance to Sudanese citizens have been shut down. This USAID pause risks intensifying the hunger crisis and famine in the country. Other NGOs are struggling to meet these increased needs but the suspension of the USAID funds has caused a lot of confusion and problems for the overall assistance efforts and is disrupting much needed services. No other organization or government has stepped in to replace these lost USAID funds. Another consequence of this suspension is that Sudanese are deciding to flee the country to escape the potential of suffering from famine and hunger.

Given these dire situations, the question becomes how does this conflict/civil war end? There are three possibilities but the potential for other unforeseen opportunities cannot be ruled out.

The first possibility is a complete military victory by either the SAF or the RSF. This possibility appears to be unlikely. Both military forces have certain, distinct advantages. For example, the SAF has a greater conventional military advantage while the RSF has greater flexibility and ability to operate as a guerrilla or unconventional force.

The second possibility is a drawn out, prolonged conflict. The potential for this is higher than the first possibility. Militarily, the two forces are being resupplied, have adequate manpower, have geographic support, and are slowly promoting ethnicity of their forces. A possible result could be division of Sudan into smaller, ethnic based countries.

The last possibility is a peace deal or ceasefire. The potential for this is also very low given the lack of U.S. and international involvement. It would take a strong, multi-nation effort to end the fighting. The international motivation to do this seems to be very low at the present time. Additionally, there is a huge market in the smuggling of gold and other resources out of Sudan by regional and non-state actors. This does not lend itself to an environment for ending the conflict.

The forecast for the short to mid-term appears to be for the two combatants to continue fighting or achieving a stalemate. The potential for the continuation of humanitarian crises and war crimes is very high. As a result, the long-term outlook is for the dissolution of Sudan by breaking apart into separate countries or Sudan becoming a failed or non-state is a reasonable possibility. The regional and global impact of this prospect is dire and could have other adverse global impacts as well.

Information obtained through a variety of sources including BBC, The Economist, New York Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, NPR, The Arms Control Association, UN, NBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, and others.