Sudan: Thinking outside the box

With the situation in Sudan deteriorating, there was no choice but to arm the civilian population to confront the advancing Rapid Reaction Forces - a move that only signifies the official declaration of chaos and civil war.
After eight months of fierce fighting between the army and the Rapid Reaction Forces, and after the latter took control of large parts of the country, unofficial calls and official steps to arm the civilian population in areas controlled by the Sudanese army are multiplying.
This has led to a proliferation of weapons and increased complexity, especially considering that according to official statistics published about five years ago, some four years before the outbreak of the current conflict, there are about five million weapons in the hands of the civilian population.
Historical experience, whether in this Arab country or elsewhere, shows that the widespread proliferation of weapons in any country can turn civilians into gangs or victims. And more importantly, it opens the door for a delayed end to civil wars and conflicts.
Recent Sudanese history highlights the tragedy of the arming of civilians in the Darfur region, where the involvement of civilian elements in the ongoing conflict in the region has reportedly led to the deaths of more than a quarter of a million people and the displacement of some two and a half million.
There are notable aspects to the Sudanese crisis, including the repeated failure of diplomatic efforts involving regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, which has Sudan’s security and stability at heart. Many African parties have also been involved in these efforts. It seems that the intentions of both parties play a crucial role in these ongoing failures.
It can be observed that the parties to the conflict proclaim their desire for peace to the outside world, but in reality, especially the leaders of the Sudanese army, reject all agreements and impose conditions that do not suit a leadership that wants to restore security and peace in their country.
Not to mention the thousands of victims and the suffering of millions of displaced persons and refugees in Sudan. It undoubtedly lacks all wisdom and reason when General Burhan, the commander of the Sudanese army, calls on the population to support the armed forces. The solution to the army’s inability to provide security cannot be to drag the population into this ongoing conflict.
Even if the idea of popular resistance invented by Burhan offers some support to the army, it is no guarantee of restoring stability. The proliferation of weapons means nothing more than the spread of chaos, the absence of law and order and the transformation of Sudan into a public battleground.
Militias could emerge, competing with each other or joining forces and perhaps facing the same army that wanted to arm them. Some argue that Sudanese citizens voluntarily join the army to defend their regions, but in reality, General Burhan himself has forcefully opened the door to the idea of arming civilians and given it an official stamp of approval.
This is his way of covering up the political and military failures and bringing the entire Sudan to the brink of a volcano that could erupt in the country, especially given the tensions and explosive factors that characterize Sudan, full of ethnic and racial tensions that require such disastrous solutions to be kept as far away as possible from consideration, let alone implementation, and mediated by those who are considered guarantors of security and stability in the country.
Politically, it is clear that Burhan is avoiding diplomatic solutions and giving his rival, Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, a great opportunity to gain credibility in the region.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Burhan has neither a clear vision for a solution nor a clear or even vague outlook for the near future. He has become a tool moved by hidden fingers, whether inside or outside the military establishment. The appearance of General Dagalo in civilian clothes and his recent Africa tour set new standards for crisis management in Sudan.
The man has shown great flexibility in seeking a political solution, especially after signs of rapprochement with civil society leaders. This led to political gains while his forces advanced militarily. In the meantime, General Burhan avoids responding to the mediation efforts and even attacks the countries that hosted his rival, accusing them of hostility towards Sudan.
He forgets that these countries, including Uganda, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia and South Africa, are of vital importance to Sudan. The crisis in Sudan is becoming increasingly complex and the army leadership is approaching the matter with a mindset that lacks logic and wisdom and is dominated by personal prejudices, emotions, lack of judgment and skepticism.
This has led to a deterioration in relations between their country and most African and Arab states. This indicates that Sudan is entering a new phase of conflict with no end in sight in the foreseeable future.
It is difficult to build coherent expectations based on the approach of Burhan and Co to face the reality with the wisdom and reason that the suffering of the Sudanese people under conditions of displacement, flight and survival dictates. The conflict between the two generals in Sudan is characterized by the fact that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
Unfortunately for the Sudanese, this conflict has not only disappeared from the international agenda, but has been completely forgotten, like many other conflicts that have lost attention due to the dominance of other crises, in particular the ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinian movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip.