It’s recently been reported that the two main protagonists of Sudan’s current conflict – leaders of the armed forces and militia who’ve been at war since April – have agreed to face-to-face talks. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), an East African body, announced the potential breakthrough in its attempt to mediate between the warring forces, raising hopes of a ceasefire. Since then, however, Sudan’s foreign ministry has claimed IGAD’s statement is inaccurate, creating further uncertainty.

There’s no question that an end to the violence is urgently needed. The conflict has created a humanitarian and human rights crisis – and not just in Sudan but in surrounding countries that people have fled to, such as Chad. But even if talks go ahead, there’s so far an absence of crucial detail. And the two leaders involved, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Mohamad Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemeti, of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia, have provided ample evidence to doubt whether they’re really interested in peace, or in accountability for atrocities.

Human rights crimes on all sides

Al-Burhan and Hemeti were partners in the October 2021 coup that ousted the civilian government. Their conflict began at a crunch moment for a supposed transition back to civilian rule and amid a proposal to absorb the RSF into the SAF – something Hemeti didn’t want. As much as anything, it appears to be motivated by a personal power battle between the two leaders.

Sparked by an apparent RSF attempted putsch, the conflict initially played out on the streets of the capital, Khartoum, and its neighbouring city of Omdurman. It has since spread to other parts of the country. Rebel groups and other militia are also active, some acting independently of the two main forces.

All sides are targeting civilians, with clear evidence that war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed. Over 12,190 people have been killed since the conflict began, and that’s likely an underestimate. Gender-based violence is increasing: the United Nations (UN) estimates that 6.9 million people will need gender-based violence services in 2024. The conflict is also driving displacement on a huge scale. The UN’s latest estimate is that 6.6 million people have now been displaced, giving Sudan the unenviable record of having the world’s highest number of displaced people.

The conflict has been brought to Darfur, already the site of a genocide against local ethnic groups committed by the RSF and other Arab militias that began in 2003. Twenty years on, people are again being killed solely on the basis of their ethnicity. As part of a campaign of atrocities, the RSF has reportedly been going door-to-door in West Darfur killing ethnic Masalit people, Black Africans who it claims support the army. The RSF now controls much of the region, including most of the bases once held by the SAF. In November, in response to the RSF’s ethnic cleansing, key Darfur militia groups, which had remained neutral, joined the SAF’s side, signalling a potential further escalation of conflict.

The chaos of conflict has caused a cholera outbreak as well as a burgeoning of diseases such as dengue fever, malaria and measles, with the health system collapsing and medical workers being attacked. In October, Médecins sans Frontières was forced to suspend vital surgery because the SAF had blocked medical supplies. In the worst-affected regions, there are food and water shortages. The World Food Programme has recently warned of a deepening hunger crisis.

In Chad, a low-income country already home to around a million displaced people before the conflict began, refugee centres are struggling to cope with arrivals from Sudan and people live in crowded and insanitary conditions, exposed to continuing insecurity, including threats from militias.

Humanitarian workers trying to meet vital needs are being targeted. In December, two people were killed and seven wounded in an attack on a Red Cross aid convoy in Khartoum. Journalists are also being targeted, such that many have been forced to flee, making it harder to get accurate and independent news from the ground and raising the risk that some human rights abuses will go undocumented. In Khartoum, the RSF has turned media buildings into detention centres.

And yet the response from the international community has been wholly inadequate. Recently the UN announced it had received only 38.6 per cent of the US$2.6 billion needed for humanitarian response in 2023. Combined with access problems, it means it’s only been able to help a fraction of those in need.

In another blow, at the start of December, the mandate of the UN Integrated Assistance Mission in Sudan was terminated at the request of the SAF-led government. Its job had been to support a democratic transition following the 2019 ousting of former long-time dictator Omar al-Bashir. The move offered a troubling sign that the government wants less rather than more international oversight.

A history of wishful thinking

With other conflicts dominating global headlines – first Ukraine, now Gaza – the world isn’t paying attention. But that doesn’t mean states have stopped taking sides. Sudan’s size, mineral wealth and position as a link between East and North Africa all give it strategic significance. Foreign states have long based their relations with Sudan on self-interested calculations. Before the conflict most states, as well as the UN, placed their faith in the military as a source of stability. With that idea blown, states are now deciding which side is their best bet.

The United Arab Emirates is reportedly supplying arms to the RSF, and recently several of its diplomats were expelled by the foreign ministry. Russia is also on the RSF’s side and its mercenaries have likely been involved. Both countries have an interest in Sudan’s gold. On the other side, Egypt has always been strongly behind the military establishment and the USA is said to be sliding towards the SAF as the perceived lesser of two evils.

Even when apparently well-intentioned, states and international organisations have consistently been guilty of wishful thinking. Before the conflict they put their faith in the promises of a military-led transition plan. Every process attempted since the coup has only further empowered the leaders now at war.

Need to enable civil society

It’s time Sudan’s civil society was heard and enabled to help pave the road to peace and democracy.

Sudan’s civil society is complex and layered. There’s an elite tier that has a track record of involvement in political processes and backed the supposedly transitional administration that emerged after the coup. There are also established civil society organisations that work to provide essential services and advocate for rights. But the biggest source of opposition to armed rule has come from resistance committees: informal neighbourhood-level groups, many of them formed by young people, that played a crucial role in the 2019 revolution.

The committees are democratic and make decisions by consensus. They call for civilian rule and reject the calculations of the outside world about which form of military government can best guarantee what it calls stability, which for the resistance committees  means continuing oppression. Under the current conflict, they’ve also become a key source of humanitarian response, including by providing food and water, healthcare and accurate information.

Diverse resistance committees have worked together to develop a plan for transition to democracy. But the outside world seems perplexed, struggling to engage with a leaderless movement and rejecting demands for democratic civilian rule as somehow too ambitious.

But everything else has failed. There should be no route for either of the warring military leaders to retain power. When peace comes, so must accountability for human rights crimes. And neither will materialise unless democracy does – which means an enabled and empowered civil society.