The situation in Sudan has taken a turn with the military and Rapid Support Forces engaging in clashes across multiple fronts. In the Blue Nile region, attacks by the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North were thwarted. Meanwhile, the city of Damazin came under drone strikes. These developments coincide with new military operations in western Kurdufan.
These events are inextricably linked to the country's political scene. Every military advance reshuffles the cards, and each field pressure narrows the room for maneuver for those treating the war as a mere political dispute to be resolved around a negotiation table. Sudan is not facing a crisis between two equal political parties but is fighting a battle for its state, institutions, and national unity against a militia that has taken up arms against it.
A recent summit in the Egyptian city of El Alamein brought together Sudanese Sovereign Council head and Armed Forces Commander General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. The meeting underscored a crucial point: the state is not run by numerous initiatives, nor is it confined to mediators' statements. The Egyptian stance emphasized Sudan's unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national institutions' cohesion.
General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan stressed that the state's legitimate institutions should not be equated with rebel militias or parallel entities. This brings to the fore the question of who holds the reins of state decision-making in Sudan. The answer does not require a new negotiation committee or an extensive diplomatic lexicon. The state's decision rests with the state itself, and its institutions cannot be replaced by a militia.
Some international parties discuss peace seriously but handle the concept of the state lightly. They put the legitimate military institution and the militia fighting it on the same footing, then ask everyone to sit at the same table as if the issue were about government seats or representation ratios. The desired peace cannot be built on obliterating the difference between the state and those who have taken up arms against it.
The armed forces are engaged in a clear battle, and today's developments confirm that the confrontation is not heading in one direction. Conversely, the political battle is equally significant, as it concerns who has the right to speak on behalf of the state, decide its future, and set peace conditions. Any genuine initiative to end the war must start with one undeniable fact: there is a Sudanese state with its institutions, and there is a militia fighting this state.
The path to peace involves ending the war, while the path to chaos begins with attempting to grant the militia legitimacy that challenges the state's decision and sovereignty. Ultimately, the real battle is not only on the ground but also about the meaning of the state itself. Those who desire peace with Sudan must treat its state as a state, its institutions as its institutions, and its decision as that of the Sudanese people.
Key points
- The conflict in Sudan is fundamentally between the state and a militia that has taken up arms against it.
- The international community's role in addressing the conflict must recognize the legitimate institutions of the Sudanese state.
- A genuine peace initiative must start with the recognition of the Sudanese state and its institutions.
