Background: Since April of 2023, a vicious power struggle has taken root in Sudan, as rival factions the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) battle each other in an ongoing civil war. Following a long history of civil war, genocide, ethnic division, religious differences, and wealth disparities, the country was just recently believed to represent a new age of democracy, as in 2019 both the RSF and the SAF established a transitional government, as well as a constitution in an attempt to move forward from the decades of conflict. Despite attempts to solidify this new transitional government with both factions, each leader that has been proposed has been rejected and protested by the people, as figures within the highest levels of government and wealthy corporations have not been held accountable for their roles in the previous injustices and violences against the nation. Although both the SAF and RSF were placed under civilian leadership in the provisional government, no deadline was established for the integration of the RSF, furthering tensions between the two groups and sparking a bloody civil war, as both wanted more control, but their roles were never clarified nor formalized.
Role of the United States:
The United States has been working with Saudi Arabia throughout the conflict in attempts to negotiate a ceasefire agreement, but have consistently failed, and have been wholly uncoordinated with other bodies such as the UN. Today, the U.S. has implemented visa restrictions on both SAF and RSF leadership, has sanctioned mining companies, and taken a harsher outlook on business transactions with the country. The failures of the United States to maintain and foster peace in this once-upstart democracy have been traced to the lack of recognition of the voice of the people and their civilian leaders, as well as a disregard of the true intentions of the opposing leaders Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (SAF) and Mohamed Hamdan (RSF). One of the major goals of the United States has consistently been to persevere in bolstering democracies worldwide in order to weaken corruption and decrease the volatility of nations that may be on the brink of war. However, despite what I view as a wise decision to not engage in direct military intervention in Sudan, by failing to understand the full-scale of perspectives involved in this complex conflict, the United States has failed to successfully facilitate ceasefire negotiations, despite continually believing that the nation was on the brink of a democratic breakthrough. This has been a frequent issue in U.S. foreign policy, as in several anthropological courses I have taken it has been made evident to me that the United States tends to neglect the interests of the people as rational actors in conflict, and rather only focus on negotiations with those at the top, who in this circumstance, are both highly corrupt and have manipulated a naive United States in attempts to grab more power, not peace, from their rivals. In sum, the United States must reassess its strategies at conflict mediation between nations if it wishes to be viewed as a true great power in conflict resolution, democracy, and peace, as currently foreign policy and negotiation strategies ignore critical motivations of leaders, as well as the most vital element of democracy: the people themselves.
Informative Sources:
How U.S. Efforts to Guide Sudan to Democracy Ended in War – The New York Times
Civil War in Sudan | Global Conflict Tracker