On 23 February, Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced the formation of a self-styled ‘Government of Peace and Unity’ – a move with Orwellian undertones.
Indeed, the RSF, notorious for war crimes since Sudan’s conflict erupted in April 2023, has played a significant role in driving the country to the brink of famine and displacing over 14 million civilians.
Yet this latest power play not only deepens the country’s turmoil but also threatens its territorial integrity, exacerbating the current de facto partition in the war-torn country.
Amplifying Sudan’s deep fractures
The announcement reflects the deep fractures within Sudan since the RSF, a leading Sudanese paramilitary faction, broke ranks from the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).
The SAF, which took control after the 2019 revolution that ousted longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir, initially shared power with civilian groups in a fragile arrangement.
However, the escalating power struggle and violence between the RSF and SAF has since crushed hopes for democracy, leaving civilians and the country’s stability at the mercy of these warring factions.
The RSF formalised its breakaway government through a charter signed in Nairobi, Kenya – a country traditionally seen as a neutral mediator in regional conflicts.
“The eventual establishment of a parallel government in RSF areas will consolidate the current de facto territorial divide of Sudan into two areas, respectively controlled by the SAF and the RSF,” Suliman Baldo, Director of the Sudan Transparency and Policy Tracker, told The New Arab, adding that the RSF could likely consolidate control over western Sudan.
The move received backing from some Sudanese political and armed figures, including Abdelaziz al-Hilu, who controls large swathes of South Kordofan, along with leaders from the National Umma Party, the Sudan Revolutionary Front, and the Original Democratic Unionist Party.
The RSF claims its initiative aims to govern the territories it holds, primarily in western Sudan, including Darfur, and parts of Kordofan. Its newly declared charter calls for “a secular, democratic, decentralised state based on freedom, equality, and justice, without bias toward any cultural, ethnic, religious, or regional identity”.
The charter also proposes forming “a new, unified, professional national army” with a military doctrine that reflects Sudan’s diversity.
However, analysts see the move as an attempt to sanitise the RSF’s record of atrocities. Human rights groups have documented widespread war crimes, and the US has officially labelled its actions as genocide.
“By providing propaganda platforms and diplomatic advocacy channels that deny the truth of RSF crimes, distort facts, and create an alternative reality, they have emboldened the militia – allowing it to persist in political blackmail,” Amgad Fareid Eltayeb, CEO of the Sudanese think tank Fikra for Studies and Development, told The New Arab.
|
|
Risks of prolonging Sudan’s war
Despite some suggestions that Sudan’s situation is drawing closer to Libya’s deadlock – where rival governments emerged in a prolonged conflict – analysts have argued that this comparison oversimplifies Sudan’s unique economic, social, and political landscape.
Instead, the RSF’s move appears to be an attempt to deepen existing divisions, particularly as it struggles to recover from military losses.
“De facto partition already exists,” Cameron Hudson, a senior fellow at CSIS who also served with the CIA and State Department in Africa, told The New Arab.
“For over a year, as much as one-third of the country has been under RSF rule, including almost all of Darfur. The formation of a parallel government doesn’t change that – it’s more of a media stunt to regain political legitimacy after a series of crushing battlefield defeats.”
Despite the RSF’s setbacks, the risk of further instability remains high.
Sudan’s military, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, has condemned the rival government as a direct threat to national unity.
The SAF has been making strategic advances, particularly in Greater Khartoum, making substantial progress in retaking RSF-held territory around the capital.
In January, the SAF successfully retook Wad Madani, the capital of El Gezira state, putting the RSF further on the back foot.
Yet should the battle lines hold, this could solidify a de facto partition, with the military controlling the east and northeast, while the RSF maintains its grip on the west and parts of the capital.
Analysts warn that such an entrenched division could accelerate Sudan’s collapse, worsening the humanitarian crisis and making peace even more elusive.
“It’s not so much about fragmentation or partition, but about the RSF trying to legitimise itself as a state-like entity,” Sudanese political analyst Dallia told The New Arab.
“It all depends on whether El-Fashir [the capital of North Darfur] falls. If it does, the RSF will have full control over Darfur.”
However, with the SAF continuing to gain ground, the RSF’s chances of further military victories appear slim. And as Dallia noted, its declaration of a rival government only hardens battle lines.
“There’s no way the SAF will come to the negotiating table now.”
|
|
International reactions
The international community has reacted with concern over the RSF’s formation of a rival government, warning that it could further destabilise Sudan and derail efforts for a peaceful resolution.
The United Nations has expressed alarm, with UN secretary-general’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric warning a parallel government “would increase the fragmentation of the country and risk making this crisis even worse”.
Several MENA nations, including Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, also slammed the move as threatening Sudan’s unity and stability.
And while both Sudan’s transitional government and the United States accused Kenya of violating Sudan’s sovereignty for hosting RSF-led meetings, Kenyan Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi defended Nairobi’s position, stating that “Kenya’s actions were in line with its broader role in peace negotiations and its commitment to supporting Sudan in finding a resolution to its ongoing political crisis”.
Regional and global powers have also staked their interests in the conflict. Iran, China, and Turkey have supplied drones to the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), with this advanced technology contributing to the SAF’s successes on the battlefield.
Meanwhile, Russia – initially hedging its bets and aligning with the RSF – has now shifted toward supporting the SAF in hopes of securing a naval base on the Red Sea.
Yet, numerous reports have linked the RSF’s financial and mercenary networks to the United Arab Emirates.
Taking aim at the UAE’s role, Amgad Fareid Eltayeb said “the announcement is effectively a declaration of partition, mirroring the situations in Yemen and Libya – both of which bear clear Emirati involvement”.
“Any discussion of RSF governance legitimacy – despite its deceptive narratives – is as absurd as advocating for the Italian Mafia to rule Italy. The RSF is not, nor can it ever be, a representative of Sudan’s marginalised communities,” he told TNA.
Cameron Hudson added that international recognition of the RSF government is unlikely, given its territorial losses and well-documented human rights abuses.
Ultimately, the RSF’s declaration deepens Sudan’s political fractures, solidifying existing territorial divisions rather than altering the balance of power.
Until now, the international response to Sudan’s crisis has largely been passive, and if this inaction persists, Sudan’s de facto partition may soon transition from an unfolding crisis to an entrenched reality.
Jonathan Fenton-Harvey is a journalist and researcher who focuses on conflict, geopolitics, and humanitarian issues in the Middle East and North Africa.
Follow him on Twitter: @jfentonharvey
