Sudan: In the Grip of an “Unseen” War

Since no genuine analysis or evaluation has been made regarding the causes of the civil war that began in Sudan on April 15, 2023, no genuine attempt for a solution has emerged either. A vast majority of the population has been forced to migrate due to the civil war, the country’s infrastructure has collapsed, and the state mechanism has disintegrated. It is said that more than 250 thousand people have lost their lives to the date. However, it is not accurate to interpret this conflict as merely “a power struggle between two generals” as popularized by the Western media. It is useful to recognize that it goes beyond that.

 

The civil war in Sudan continues almost like a war in which only the Sudanese people are left alone to deal with the pain of war and which is unseen or ‘forgotten’ by both the world and the Muslim communities. It has been forgotten so much so that the destruction and human tragedy caused by war are not even talked about. The issue only briefly enters public discourse through occasional tactical “successes” by the warring parties and then quickly fades away. The condition and suffering of the oppressed civilians remain on very few people’s agendas. Those who carefully avoid discussing the reasons that led to the war, the destruction that occurred, and the human tragedy, can be happy with the unrealistic changes in position that emerged as a result of the tactical steps of the parties. This is a pitiful picture.

The Destruction Caused by the War

Since no real analysis or evaluation has been conducted about the reasons behind the ongoing war in Sudan, no genuine solution initiative has emerged either. A large part of the population was forced to migrate, the country’s infrastructure was destroyed, and the state mechanism collapsed. It is said that more than 250 thousand people have lost their lives to date. The United Nations (UN) has described the situation as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Michael Dunford, the emergency director for the World Food Programme (WFP) in Sudan, said, “A catastrophe is unfolding before our eyes, and I fear it will get even worse.” According to the WFP, approximately 25.6 million people in the country are experiencing “acute hunger,” and this number is steadily rising. Even access to drinking water is unavailable inside and outside the country.

It is estimated that more than 20 million people have been forced to leave their homes. Over 4 million people have migrated to neighboring countries. Sudanese people who have fled to countries such as Chad, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Libya, and the Central African Republic are forced to live without even minimum living standards. Health services within the country have completely ceased. In addition to the destruction, some segments of the population are being targeted due to their ethnic backgrounds. UN sources mention the use of chemical weapons. According to UNHCR reports, approximately 25 million people, more than half of the country’s population, are in need of humanitarian assistance and protection. The scale of the destruction is so severe that even neighboring countries are beginning to feel its effects. In particular, the situations in Chad and South Sudan are critical.

Sudan: Military Coups and Civil Wars

Considering Sudan’s recent history, it would not be wrong to describe the country in two words: a land of “civil wars” and “military coups.” Since gaining independence in 1956, Sudan has experienced nearly 22 military coups. Many of these coups are intertwined. We are talking about a country where a military coup has occurred roughly every three years.  Despite this, military coups in Sudan are evaluated in four different categories. The coup led by Colonel Jafar Numeyri, the 1989 coup led by Omar al-Bashir, the 2019 coup and the October 2021 coup. One of the countries that will best understand the consequences of military coups is Türkiye. Until recently, Türkiye was often described as a country where military coups take place every 10 years. Türkiye overcame this vicious cycle by making democracy work and transferring the source of legitimacy to the will of the people, elections and ballot boxes.

One of the fundamental problems arising from military coups and military rule in Sudan has been the recurring civil wars. It is possible to speak of four separate civil wars. The First Sudanese Civil War began on August 18, 1955 and lasted until March 27, 1972. It was a civil war that lasted 16 years and 7 months.

The second Sudanese civil war took place between May 1983 and January 2005. These two wars can be seen as a continuation of one another. Initiated due to ethnic and religious motives, these two conflicts eventually led to the division of the country. Another civil war occurred in the Darfur region. This war broke out in 2003 due to tensions among tribes in Sudan’s Darfur province. The conflict in Darfur between Arab and non-Arab tribes was fueled by various sources, including ethnic, religious, and economic factors. The most recent example is the fourth major civil war that began on April 15, 2023, and is still ongoing. The difference of this civil war is that it is not a civil war of ethnic or religious origin. Another feature of this war is that it is not limited to a certain region of the country, but unlike the previous ones, it affects a very large part of the country.

Possible Outcomes of Civil Wars

There are two fundamental problems that civil wars show us: division and unstable state structure. It appears that neither the rulers of Sudan nor the actors involved in the war have been able to establish superiority over one another after two years. The recent developments in Khartoum are certainly significant. However, considering the country’s vast geography and the areas controlled by the parties, it is difficult to say that the situation in Khartoum alone can be decisive. Therefore, the warring parties need to acknowledge and consider the possible outcomes. In a region like Africa, and in a country that has previously experienced division, this can be much more likely to repeat.

Another possibility as critical as division is the state’s failure to ever achieve a stable structure. One of the lessons civil wars tought us is the emergence of small groups conducting armed activities within the country after the war. In a conflict where there are such great tragedies in between, what will happen if you do not put into action the possibilities of ending the conflict without any problems is conflicts that will keep the country busy within itself.

What Is the Way Out?

The war is the result of years of discrimination, exclusion, economic inequality, destruction of the state apparatus, and a pretended political process. Therefore, a resolution cannot be reached through arms. To put it more clearly, there is no military solution. Military interventions only postpone the problem. Prolonging the war will only increase the suffering of the people. What needs to be done is to initiate and sustain negotiations, which are the basic steps of conflict resolution. It should not be forgotten that negotiating is not a sign of weakness or abandoning defended values. On the contrary, considering the losses caused by the conflict, it is a less costly solution. It is a solution that does not divide the country and does not lead to chaos.

The example may not match exactly, but it is useful to take into account what Türkiye has experienced. Türkiye kept the door open for negotiations while also pursuing military methods to resolve the PKK issue.  A new process is currently underway and the leader of the organization has called for “the conditions for the organization to continue its armed status have been eliminated, the organization should dissolve itself.” Similar examples have occurred in countries like the United Kingdom, Colombia, Spain, South Africa, and the Philippines.

The point I want to emphasize is that the main way to end conflicts is to negotiate. Some negotiations were held during the Sudanese civil war. However, the expected results could not be achieved because both the structure of the negotiations and some of the internal ‘actors’ involved in the process were not managed effectively. Emotions took precedence over reason and the issue was personalized. If this had not been done, if reason had guided the process instead of emotions, positive results could have been obtained from the talks. In fact, governing the state also requires reason. Because what is happening is not personal tensions and one should not be a slave to emotion. Countries are governed by reason, not by emotion or ambition. In short, the way out is through using reason, negotiating, discussing and empathizing.

The Solution Is Civil Politics

It would be inaccurate to interpret the ongoing conflict in Sudan as merely “a power struggle between two generals,” as popularized by Western media. It is useful to recognize that this issue goes beyond that. The issue is to free the country from the grip of military coups and civil wars, to implement democratic processes, to let the people decide who will govern the country, and to end discrimination by the state. In other words, since the problem is political, the solution must also be political. Once the needs for genuine peace, ceasefire and humanitarian aid have been met, what needs to be done is to move towards a negotiated political solution that addresses the root causes of the war. The political solution can begin with political talks that include the implementation of democratic processes, because it is difficult to stabilize a country that has experienced civil war, but it is not impossible.

The path to this is through dialogue, free political organization, political participation, and elections. We all know very well that the primary condition for governing a state is legitimacy. And the source of legitimacy is not the power one holds, the number of soldiers controlled, the level of education, material wealth, religious knowledge, or existing relationships. There are two fundamental issues in state governance in a fragmented society like Sudan. The first is democratic legitimacy. That is, free elections, the political choice of the people, the vote of the citizens. The second is to come to office through elections and to know when to leave office depending on the election results. If this mechanism exists and works, it becomes easier to find solutions to all other problems. For this, organization and participation in politics are important.

Political formations can do politics in two different ways. The first is organization-style politics. That is, doing politics for the interests of a small group or ideology. It is difficult for such understandings to win elections and govern the country. Because they are far from representing a large part of society. However, such structures are valuable for the functioning of the democratic system and the continuation of democracy. The value here is that the solution is sought in the ballot box, in the election. They are valuable because they do not direct people to areas other than the ballot box. However, what is important is the formation of political structures that appeal to the main body of society and have the ability to represent broad segments of it. Political structures and political understandings that are at the center, not at the edges, and that have a discourse and attitude that can attract the attention of a large portion of the population. The way for Sudan to escape the grip of civil war and military coup is through central politics that takes into account the demands of the periphery.

Source: perspektifonline.com