Loading
Ayear agorsfsafuaersfrsfrsfrsfRSFsafrsfrsfrsfrsfrsfsafrsfsafrsfrsfrsfuaersfrsfrsfunsafrsfrsfrsfrsfYour browser does not support the element. the Rapid Support Forces () seemed to be on a roll. The Sudanese paramilitary group, which had been battling the Sudanese Armed Forces (), Sudan’s regular army, since April 2023, had taken over much of Khartoum, the capital. Almost all of Darfur, its ethnic base in the far west, was under its control. And equipped with weapons reportedly supplied by the United Arab Emirates (), its most powerful foreign ally (which denies sending them), it was even on the cusp of capturing the army’s traditional heartlands in the south-east. Muhammad Hamdan Dagalo (better known as Hemedti), the group’s leader and Sudan’s most feared warlord, prepared to embark on a tour of African capitals, where he would be welcomed like a president-in-waiting.These days there is less talk of a clear military victory for the . Its troops may be close to seizing full control of the Darfur region’s capital, el-Fasher. But elsewhere it has seen setbacks. Since the end of the rainy season in September, the army has made inroads into -controlled parts of Khartoum. With allied militias, it has held the line in the south. And in late October, a top commander in Gezira state defected. This led to a wave of retaliatory attacks against civilians so brutal that observers likened them to the ethnic cleansing of non-Arab tribes from -occupied parts of West Darfur last year.For those hoping to negotiate an end to a war which has caused the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, all this makes the task of understanding the —its goals and its capacity to achieve them—more pressing. The most recent talks, held in Switzerland in August, were a resounding failure. Yet that was largely because the refused to attend them. By contrast the “believes there is no way out of this war through total victory for one side”, one of its top negotiators told in a rare interview on November 18th. Analysts are divided on whether the group’s demand for negotiations is genuine. But if it is, it prompts an important question. What kind of deal would be acceptable to the and its foreign backers?According to the official, Elzeddain el-Safi, the is fighting to overthrow a narrow group of northern Sudanese who have dominated the state and the army since independence from Britain in 1956. He calls the conflict Sudan’s “final war”. It has displaced about a third of the population and triggered what experts fear may be the worst famine the world has seen in 40 years. By “final” he means that it will not end until the root causes of perennial instability are dealt with, above all the marginalisation of remote areas such as Darfur. Mr el-Safi also argues that the war was instigated by Islamists from the former ruling party of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s long-standing dictator, who was toppled in peaceful protests in 2019. The Islamists, Mr el-Safi claims, are fighting to return themselves to power. The , he insists, is struggling to “secure the people’s choice”.The ’s claim to be waging war for democracy is unconvincing. The group grew out of the Janjaweed, militias notorious for rape and butchery of civilians in Darfur in the 2000s. There is little to suggest it has fundamentally changed. In 2021 Mr Dagalo, then the de facto vice-president in a transitional government alongside the ’s leader, Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan, took part in a coup against the civilian prime minister. Mr el-Safi says the soon recognised that this was a mistake. But he does not deny that Mr Dagalo still wants to govern Sudan: “He has full right to lead the people.” Yet a warlord loathed by large swathes of the population would find it hard to do so democratically.The army insists that it is fighting to prevent the break-up of Sudan. Yet some observers suspect that there are many within the ’s ranks who would willingly relinquish Darfur, a rebellious region whose diverse population they see as having little in common with northerners from Khartoum and its hinterlands. In response, the now trumpets a firmer commitment to the country’s territorial integrity. “The will never allow a divided Sudan,” says Mr el-Safi. “Sudan will stay united.”There are reasons to take seriously the ’s commitment to Sudanese unity. Darfur, a landlocked, water-scarce region the size of France, is not an obvious candidate for independent statehood. And the (whose military support Mr el-Safi denies) is understood to regard securing access to the Red Sea coast as core to its interests in Sudan. Any deal which would force the to withdraw its troops from Khartoum and the fertile farmland along the Nile valley would probably be a non-starter.Instead, Mr el-Safi outlines the ’s idea for a negotiated settlement. It should begin, he says, with a cessation of hostilities. The war’s current battle lines should be frozen in place, but both sides would withdraw from “civilian installations” such as residences and schools. A demilitarised buffer zone could potentially be enforced by African peacekeepers. After that should come a “national dialogue” involving all political forces in the country except for Islamists and the former ruling party. These groups would be allowed to take part in national politics only after a period of perhaps five years, once “we’ve reset the rules …and stabilised the country”.It is not hard to understand why the is emphasising its commitment to talks. Most outside powers, including the , reckon the has more legitimacy in the eyes of most Sudanese. Yet the army’s dogged refusal to engage seriously in negotiations has weakened its international standing, particularly among Western diplomats. The is trying to position itself as the more reliable partner for peace.This remains questionable. Despite promising to allow aid into the areas under its control, the has kept el-Fasher under siege for months. Elsewhere, aid workers complain of deliberate bureaucratic obstacles. Moreover, the ’s leaders continue to deny atrocities which have been extensively documented. Mr el-Safi blames “mainstream media” for spreading false information about ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Sexual violence committed by soldiers is well-attested, yet one of Mr el-Safi’s colleagues recently claimed the group had recorded just one rape in areas it controls. The militia’s professed desire for talks is welcome, but it has a long way to go before its word will be trusted.
