Khartoum changes hands, marking a new phase in Sudan's civil war
Nearly two years after being forced to fall back to Port Sudan on the coast, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan are triumphantly back in charge of Khartoum, the capital. They still face resistance in areas south of the city and in the district of Omdurman on the west bank of the Nile. But the city's recapture marks a turning point in a war that has killed tens of thousands of people, displaced 12m and caused one of the world's worst famines for decades. The question now is whether the SAF halts its advance or pushes westward.
That will depend partly on pressure from the general's allies. The SAF has advanced on the battlefield in recent months largely thanks to a broad and diverse coalition assembled since the early months of the war, when it lost swathes of the country, including most of Khartoum, to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a descendant of the Janjaweed, an ethnically Arab militia that terrorised the vast western region of Darfur for two decades. The RSF is commanded by Muhammad Hamdan Dagalo, better known as Hemedti, who is apparently determined to fight on.
On the SAF's side are foreign backers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and neighbouring Egypt, which has reportedly provided air support. Looser associates include Russia, Turkey and Iran, which have sold the army weapons and drones. Some of those countries may now press General Burhan, who has doggedly refused peace talks, to negotiate with the RSF. To sweeten the deal, outsiders may offer to recognise an SAF-led government in Khartoum and help pay to rebuild the battered city.
Yet competing interests among the army's domestic allies could scupper any such deal. The SAF has enlisted voluntary local defence units, composed of civilians enraged by the RSF's looting and terrorising of populations under its control, and militias from Darfur. It has also fought alongside jihadist brigades with links to the Islamist government of Omar al-Bashir that was ousted in 2019. Faced with the dilemma of whether to continue the fight westwards towards the RSF's base in Darfur, or to consolidate in Khartoum, this shaky alliance could well splinter.
Prominent voices are urging it to push on. 'Darfur is part of Sudan,' says Amjed Farid, a former government official. 'The SAF should not surrender it to the RSF.' Many Darfuris, not least the ethnic African groups who have suffered atrocities including possible genocide at the hands of the RSF, probably feel the same.
But such a push could easily end badly. The army has made the biggest recent gains in its traditional strongholds in central Sudan. A ground offensive in Darfur would entail battles on the RSF's home turf and stretched supply lines. As a commander during the first Darfur war, in the 2000s, General Burhan got bogged down in the region. Even with the support of local allies his forces could find themselves in a quagmire again. 'The Sudanese Armed Forces have never really won in Darfur,' says Kholood Khair of Confluence Advisory, a Sudanese think-tank.
Still, for the moment there is little talk of a ceasefire or negotiations, at least in public. The SAF continues to bomb civilians: a strike on a market in Darfur on March 24th reportedly killed at least 54 people and injured dozens more. In Khartoum there are alarming reports of lawlessness. Gruesome videos have circulated in recent days appearing to show beheadings of suspected RSF collaborators by groups allied to the army.
There are equally few signs that the RSF, despite its defeat in Khartoum and its recent insistence that it wished to begin dialogue, is ready to sue for peace. In February it announced the formation of a parallel government in the areas under its control. Its chief foreign supporter, the United Arab Emirates, does not appear to have stopped sending it weapons. Almost all of Sudan's immediate neighbours, except Egypt and Eritrea, now fall within the Emiratis' sphere of influence. This means the RSF should be able to continue resupplying itself. 'I'd be surprised if the RSF is going to take this one lying down,' says Alex Rondos, a former EU special representative to the Horn of Africa.
In Khartoum and its surroundings the SAF's victory should at least make it easier for aid agencies to deliver food and other emergency supplies. That could stave off famine, temporarily reducing the misery for Sudanese in these areas. 'But does it actually bring the war closer to the end?' asks Payton Knopf, a former American diplomat. 'Probably not.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
"We condemn terrorism in strongest terms": Chief of Peace Committee, Security Council of the African Union Billy Winter
Addis Ababa [Ethiopia], May 31 (ANI): The Chief of Peace Committee, Security Council of the African Union, Billy Winter, expressed support for India's stance against terrorism. He observed that India and the African Union both have been dealing with the menace of terrorism and noted that in discussions with the all-party delegation, they (AU) shared their experiences and commitment to work together to eliminate terrorism. Speaking to ANI, Billy Winter said, 'We are with India in these trying moments. We, as the African Union Commission, condemn terrorism in the strongest terms, whether on the African continent, globally, or on the Indian side. However, we have shared experiences. As far as the African Union, we have also had this menace of terrorism across a number of member states. So our experience and how we respond to this, we have discussed with the high-level multi-party delegation from India, and they have also shared their experiences and committed to jointly working together to eliminate this menace once and for all.' In his remarks, he expressed that India has a right to respond to acts of terrorism as it is a 'sovereign right'. Speaking about India's new approach towards countering terrorism, he said, 'The new doctrine of India, we have been told, says that wherever the terrorist is on the globe, if it strikes on Indian soil, then India has the right to respond. And that is obvious, because the right to respond is a sovereign right on every state that has been afflicted by this menace.' He also said, 'It is terrorism that affects the livelihood of the civilians. So the way you respond to it is entirely through the national legislative measures. As the African Union, we have put in place normative frameworks. The Notch Court process, the Djibouti process, the counterterrorism centre in Algiers, and the information sharing centre in Entebbe, Uganda. Some of these are mechanisms that were put in place for sharing information and intelligence with our partners and allies.' The all-party delegation led by Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar (NCP-SCP) MP Supriya Sule, had earlier interacted with the Peace and Security Council of the African Union at its Headquarters in Addis Ababa. The delegation's mission is to showcase India's resolve against terrorism and garner international support for a united stand against this global threat. The Indian government's diplomatic outreach efforts aim to strengthen partnerships with countries in East and Southeast Asia, emphasising the need for a collective response to the threat of terrorism. India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7 in a decisive military response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 people were killed. Indian armed forces targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, leading to the death of over 100 terrorists affiliated with terror outfits like the Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen. After the attack, Pakistan retaliated with cross-border shelling across the Line of Control and Jammu and Kashmir as well as attempted drone attacks along the border regions, following which India launched a coordinated attack and damaged radar infrastructure, communication centres and airfields across 11 airbases in Pakistan. After this, on May 10, an understanding regarding the cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan was announced. (ANI)
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Turkiye's support for Pakistan signals a bigger neighbourhood problem for India
In the recent India-Pakistan military conflict, Turkiye stood steadfast in offering unambiguous support to Pakistan before and after the conflict. Sources close to the Turkish government claimed that Turkish cargo planes carried military supplies to Pakistan, although this was denied by Turkish officials. This is one of the loudest statements Turkiye has made in a long time, marking a clear departure from its previously stated Asia Anew Initiative, as Turkiye reprioritises security over trade in its South Asia policy. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has spoken several times since then, reiterating his country's support for Pakistan. Turkiye has clearly made up its mind on how it looks at South Asia and who it sees fit to support in the region. This has not happened overnight. Nor is it temporary. Turkiye is operating within its conception of a 'securitised South Asia,' where its national security is linked to the region. Nearly all statements coming from Turkiye after the Indian military action have condemned the 'provocative steps' and claimed that strikes inside Pakistan raised 'the risk of an all-out war'. No other Muslim or Arab nation, except Azerbaijan, issued a direct condemnation of the Indian operation. Turkiye and Pakistan share predicament There is general agreement that in the post-Cold War era, both Turkiye and Pakistan have lost their relevance to the Western security architecture. Both have been searching for ways to stay relevant in the changing security landscape. Turkiye's NATO allies have been harsh in their criticism of its growing ties with Russia, particularly after it purchased the S-400 missile defence system. Its allies have denied Turkiye crucial defence technologies and supplies to the extent that in today's Middle East, non-NATO members Israel and the UAE have received the best of NATO defence technology, which Turkiye has been denied, including the F-35. Pakistan, too, is vulnerably dependent on the Chinese defence industry – its only option after the West abandoned it. Turkiye's Pakistan policy may not be India-centric, but they need each other because they have few allies. The bigger question, however, is whether Turkiye can or should have a Pakistan policy at the expense of its relations with India. Choosing Pakistan over India There is an unspoken consensus in Ankara and Riyadh that Pakistan is far too important to be written off. Islamabad has already become Turkiye's most important defence ally outside NATO. However, this has come at a heavy cost: an antagonised India. Almost every Muslim nation, not just Turkiye, faces the same dilemma. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have, however, successfully de-hypenated their relations with India and Pakistan. Turkiye tried to maintain a degree of ambiguity about its relations with Pakistan for a long time and sought close and confident ties with India. Turkiye's offer to India was equally important, as it involved strategic relations with New Delhi in exchange for the normalisation of ties with Pakistan, including a peaceful resolution of their disputes over Jammu and Kashmir. For that, the Turkish president used all possible tactics to bring New Delhi on board, which mostly resulted in public and diplomatic backlash. The period 2019-2022 could be counted as the lowest point in Turkiye-India relations when the two countries waged a massive media campaign against each other. This was in the wake of the revocation of the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian federal structure. Since 2022, there have been signs of withdrawals on the Turkish side as India gave Turkiye a clear message that Turkiye's special ties with Pakistan and supporting its Kashmir politics are the biggest obstacles in India-Turkiye relations. In 2022, Turkiye and Pakistan supported Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Armenia, defeated and isolated, rushed to India for crucial defence supplies, including India's indigenous air defence system, Akash. Not just Armenia, India quickly reached out to Turkiye's regional rivals and detractors, Iran, Greece, Cyprus, UAE and Israel, seeking close defence and strategic relations. Many in Delhi explained this as a reaction to Turkiye's defence relations with Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Maldives. Turkiye's rising influence in its immediate neighbourhood may challenge India's interests. By aggressively marketing its defence sector in Asia, Turkiye has attracted new clients and potential allies whose perspectives on regional security may differ from those of Delhi. India's foreign policy has gradually shifted. India has started reimagining itself as a resurgent power, taking pride in self-reliance (Atmanirbhar Bharat). 'India First' becomes India alone In the ruling party's ideological discourse, India First has always been echoed as a slogan, which means India's interests are the supreme objectives of its new foreign policy. Realist pundits in New Delhi have often defined, even exaggerated, 'India First' as 'India Alone'. This contradicts a previously practised the ' Gujral Doctrine ' that offered support to the neighbouring countries without expectation of reciprocity. India's geopolitical imagination of itself is even more complex. It goes well beyond the boundaries of its existing nation-state. Today, India sees itself as a reduced geographical version of a larger civilisational India. These two imaginations of India – 'India First' and India as the magnanimous neigbour seeking no reciprocity – demand distinct and occasionally contradictory foreign policies. 'India First' represents that realism that originates from the perceived trauma of the dismemberment or shrinking of a civilisational India. On the other hand, Turkiye and China are aggressively advancing transnational foreign policies by instrumentalising their Turkic and Ottoman pasts and the Belt and Road Initiative, respectively. Under Narendra Modi, India has successfully built bilateral partnerships worldwide, leaving regional cooperation forums, including the South Asian Association forRegional Cooperation (SAARC), mostly unattended or underrepresented. India's growing disinterest in regional cooperation forums has allowed India's neighbours to look beyond India. This has provided an opportunity for China, Turkiye, and the United States to ignore India's regional leadership in South Asia. India must be worried that the securitisation of South Asia has helped China, Turkiye, and other powers find new defence partnerships in its neighbourhood. The change was coming gradually and silently, away from the glare of diplomatic crises. The end of ambiguity in Turkiye's South Asia policy and the burgeoning Turkiye-Pakistan defence relations is a new reality that India must deal with. What is apparent, however, is that India does not have a Turkiye policy beyond transactional interests and temporary anger, which is insufficient to counter a rising power like Turkiye. It might need its allies within the Arab and Islamic world, particularly Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia to discourage Turkiye from its South Asian ambitions. Yildirim Beyazit University. He is also the Director of Research at the International Dialogue and Diplomacy Foundation in New Delhi.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Arab ministers condemn Israel 'ban' on planned West Bank visit
Representative AI image The foreign ministers of five Arab countries who had planned to visit the occupied West Bank this weekend on Saturday condemned Israel's decision to block their plans. The ministers condemned "Israel's decision to ban the delegation's visit to Ramallah (on Sunday) to meet with the president of the State of Palestine, Mahmud Abbas", the Jordanian foreign ministry said. Ministers from Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had been expected to take part alongside Turkey and the secretary-general of the Arab League. Israel had announced late Friday that it would not cooperate, effectively blocking the visit as it controls the territory's borders and airspace. Abbas "intended to host in Ramallah a provocative meeting of foreign ministers from Arab countries to discuss the promotion of the establishment of a Palestinian state," said a statement attributed to an unidentified official. "Such a state would undoubtedly become a terrorist state in the heart of the Land of Israel. Israel will not cooperate with such moves aimed at harming it and its security." Had the visit gone ahead, the delegation's head Prince Faisal bin Farhan would have become the first Saudi foreign minister to visit the West Bank. Israel this week announced the creation of 22 new Jewish settlements in the West Bank, regarded by the United Nations as illegal under international law and one of the main obstacles to a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like local network access control Esseps Learn More Undo During a visit to one of the new settlement sites on Friday, Defence Minister Israel Katz vowed to build a "Jewish Israeli state" in the Palestinian territory. Taking aim at foreign countries that would "recognise a Palestinian state on paper", he added: "The paper will be thrown into the trash bin of history, and the State of Israel will flourish and prosper." In June, Saudi Arabia and France are to co-chair an international conference at UN headquarters meant to resurrect the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Saudi Arabia was said to have been close to recognising Israel before the start of the Gaza war, and US President Donald Trump, during a recent visit to Riyadh, called normalisation between the countries "my fervent hope and wish". But de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said Saudi Arabia will not recognise Israel without an independent Palestinian state.
