Sudan’s dream of democracy appears to be over

ON 15th of April, fighting broke out between the Sudanese army and an influential paramilitary group the Rapid Support Forces. So far, this violence has perforated Sudan’s capital Khartoum as well as other cities across the nation, creating tens of thousands of evacuees and resulting in the deaths of an estimated 700 civilians. With two military bodies vowing for control of the country, the reason for this could appear simplistic. Behind each faction, however, is a man who, in 2021, worked within a coup which overthrew Sudan’s leader Al-Bashir. Army General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the RSF leader General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo — or Hemedti — collectively took power of the nation only two years ago. Whilst allies, the groups broke the autocracy dominating Sudan, leading a popular uprising which called for democracy. However, as the military initiated discussions to incorporate the RSF into the army, the country’s potential for stability crumbled.

This conflict is thus much more coplex than it initially seems. When the coup first happened, Sudan attracted nations across the world, with Western powers rallying around the move towards democracy, the planning for a Russian naval base, and the investment of oil rich gulf states. As a country that has been dominated by insular politics and internal conflict for dec- ades, this influx of investment appeared as praise for good behaviour. Whilst Western powers jumped to support a political climate more similar to their own, the Gulf allowed Sudan to enter the global resource economy. From a first glance, this could seem like investment in a country on an upward trajectory, but what the recent conflict has revealed is the potentially superficial nature of this investment. their allies, the Saudis, have leapt to resolve the conflict as quickly as possible, and who they are truly fighting for. The Sudan crisis pits the West (and its new friends, the rich Gulf states) and Russia against one another, and has allowed their global argument to manifest in yet another national conflict. On the surface, this crisis perhaps appears to be a power struggle between two men refusing to relinquish their fight for Sudan’s resources. But, as one examines it more closely, it is appears that Sudan is perhaps following the common trend of many nations that do show potential. As global powers jump to ‘invest’ in this developing country, you cannot help but think that they are simply vowing for their own authority. As the US calls for the end to a tragic conflict, perhaps they are also really calling for the expulsion of Russian interests. By doing so, seeking to absorb Sudan under their influence. What is be- coming clearer, however, is that much of the international attention on Sudan is focused on either maintaining interests or reducing the influence of opposing states, leaving the fate of the Sudanese population in limbo. Thus, unless anyone chooses to look beyond the wider political repercussions, the future for Sudan will remain dubious, as it will continue to be wrapped up in the ever-encompassing reach of an West versus East divide.

In opposition to Western and Gulf influence, the Russian mercenary group ‘Wagner’ has been supplying the RSF with missiles, and has thus incited something of an east/west divide which closely mirrors the hot conflicts of the Cold War over half a century ago. Amid several failed ceasefires, the US and Saudi Arabia have jumped to sponsor ‘pre-negotiation talks’ between the warring sides. Biden has issued a statement declaring “The violence taking place in Sudan is a tragedy — and it is a betrayal of the Sudanese people’s clear demand for civilian government and a transition to democracy”. Whilst this is clearly true, it bears considering why the US and