Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

In Sudan war, everyone is enemy at some point depending on the season

What you need to know:

  • On Monday, the US and Russia traded barbs at the UN Security Council with Washington alleging Moscow had funded both sides. But even among the protagonists themselves, some external entities are either friend or foe, depending on the season.

Just who is playing on the side of civilians in the Sudan war? The answer depends on who you ask. Both the Sudan Armed Forces (Saf) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary group, have claimed they are fighting to defeat ‘rebels’ or ‘brotherhood sympathisers,’ a reference to Omar al-Bashir era supporters.

On Monday, the US and Russia traded barbs at the UN Security Council with Washington alleging Moscow had funded both sides. But even among the protagonists themselves, some external entities are either friend or foe, depending on the season.

When the war started back in April 2023, many hoped the neighbours in the region, including the regional bloc, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (Igad) would be the first weapon to solve the crisis.

Igad, and by extension the African Union (AU), had helped pacify some of the conflicts in the Horn: South Sudan and Ethiopia, for example.

But Saf was on and off about the regional bloc. First it wanted to decide who mediates: Saf leaders generally wanted South Sudan’s Salva Kiir. Then they demanded to be returned to the AU from where they had been suspended for running a coup in Khartoum back in October 2021. The AU routinely suspends members who illegally change governments.

Within Igad, further suspicions emerged: Saf felt Kenya, for example, was too close to RSF. In public, Lt-Gen Yasser al-Atta dared Igad to send troops or whatever representation to Sudan. As such, nothing moved, just the war.

Earlier in 2024, Sudan went ahead to suspend cooperation with Igad, effectively sidelining the bloc from making any suggestions. Saf pushed levers of protests even as it bilaterally spoke with Igad members: Junta leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan travelled to Juba, Djibouti, Addis Ababa, Kampala and even Kenya. On one hand, he sought legitimacy for the junta, but then spoke about isolating RSF. He didn’t get both.

By December 2024, Saf had quietly returned to Igad, sending representatives to attend meetings on security, peace and migration policies. Saf, however, has not let go its policy of biting and blowing over the wound.

Last week, Al-Atta, delivered a fiery speech during Independence Day celebrations in Omdurman, directing sharp criticism and threats toward the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Uganda. Al-Atta warned UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed, vowing to “reach him in his own home.” UAE has denied arming the RSF.

But the Sudanese military leader also singled out Uganda, accusing it of meddling in Sudanese affairs and supporting mercenaries. He had earlier accused President William Ruto of Kenya of taking sides. State House Nairobi refuted the charge, earlier, arguing dialogue needed reaching out to all sides, the friendship between Dr Ruto and RSF leader Mohamed Dagalo ‘Hemedti’ notwithstanding.

Al-Atta’s statements echoed the hardline stance of Sudan’s Sovereignty Council Chairman and Gen Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, who, in his Independence Day address, declared his refusal to return to the pre-war political landscape. Al-Burhan stated: “We cannot accept the presence of murderers, criminals, and their supporters among the Sudanese people ever again.”

This rhetoric underscores the military leadership’s determination to dismantle the influence of the RSF and its alleged backers.

Sudan has often labeled UAE as a backer of RSF. But by extension, it has seen Sudan accuse Kenya, Uganda, Chad of helping the Gulf country run interference in Sudan.

Egypt and Ethiopia have been closer to Saf, partly for their own domestic security necessities. In the past, however, the UAE and Saudi Arabia courted Sudan as the two Gulf countries launched offensives on the Yemeni Houthis.

Some security experts say Sudan successfully lobbied the US to drop earlier sanctions on Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism because of UAE and Saudi lobbying machineries.

“This was because Sudan was involved in the (Yemen) war and supposedly terminated its relationship with Iran. With the UAE supplying the RSF with weapons, the relationship has been damaged,” observed Dr Jihad Mashamoun, a researcher on Middle East Politics at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter. Iran has since returned to Khartoum too and is accused of supplying weapons to Saf.

Dr Mashamoun, however, indicated the UAE has tried to mend relationship with the Saf, partly on realising that the RSF may not necessarily win the war, and because of the reputation costs.

However, Sudan has demanded compensation for what it says is UAE’s contribution to deaths as well as destruction of Khartoum’s economy. Sudan’s estimate is that UAE should pay at least $60 billion in terms of:

• Compensation for war damage: Holding external actors accountable for the devastation of Sudan’s infrastructure.

• Blood money for victims: Compensating the families of victims and survivors of abuses.

• Repatriation of smuggled funds: Returning funds allegedly linked to the RSF.

• Removal of mercenaries: Ensuring the extradition of fighters operating under foreign patronage.

Whether the UAE pays up is a matter of wait-and-see but Dr Mashamoun argued Abu Dhabi has tried back channels: Using friendly countries to Sudan such as Egypt, Ethiopia and Turkey to try and mend fences with Khartoum.

Yet Sudan’s war has also meant interests of global powers have played here. In November Russia vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution that had called on the warring parties to immediately cease hostilities and ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid.

On Monday, the US said Moscow was backing both sides, ostensibly to hedge chances of influence for the winner.

“Russia chose obstruction: standing alone as it voted to imperil civilians, while funding both sides of the conflict – yes, that's what I said: both sides," the US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told the council on Monday.

“Nevertheless, we will continue to work tirelessly to prevent abuses and hold perpetrators to account. We urge all members of this Council to do the same: to prioritise the lives of civilians over domestic policy objectives.

“We will continue to prevent passing unbalanced decisions by the Council, as such decisions tend to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sudan for the benefit of the external sponsors of its instability,” argued Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s First Permanent Representative to the UN.

“We stand convinced that the Sudanese people can and should resolve their internal problems on their own.”

Dr Abdullah Hamdok, the former prime minister deposed in 2021, and now Chairman of the Civil Democratic Forces Coordination, said in his New Year’s speech, that national unity and solidarity will be Sudan’s most immediate steps.

“The challenges facing our nation require all of us to come together and work collectively to build a Sudan rooted in peace and justice,” he said. But he was cautioning factions on the consequences of war, stating, “When the bullet is unleashed from the weapon, it will not distinguish between the aggressor and the non-aggressor, and the victims are the Sudanese people.”

The UAE though, may leverage on its traditional economic partnership with Sudan where it invested in agriculture and real estate.