Between Condemnation and Impotence: Sudan Between the UN Security Council and the African Union’s Peace and Security Council and the De Facto Government

Read Time: 4 minutes

By Diaa Al-Din Muhammad Ahmad

Al-Fashir as a Mirror of Transformations

The fall of Al-Fashir city was not just a battlefield event in an ongoing, futile war; it was a revealing moment in the contemporary political history of Sudan. The city, which formed the heart of Darfur politically and socially, has today become a symbol of the collapse of the central state and the transformation of the conflict from a struggle for power to a complete disintegration of the concept of sovereignty.

As Dr. Amani Al-Tawil pointed out, the fall of Al-Fashir was not measured by the number of neighborhoods or sites that fell, but by what it revealed about the imbalance in regional and international balances, and the fragility of the military and political structure of the current regime in Port Sudan.

Firstly: The UN Security Council… Condemnation without Effectiveness

The statement by the UN Security Council condemning the attack by the Rapid Support Forces on Al-Fashir seemed pale and limp in the face of the humanitarian catastrophe. The statement was limited to rhetorical phrases about “deep concern” and “calls for restraint,” while ignoring direct references to the supporters of these militias, most notably the foreign funding networks coming from the UAE through regional intermediaries.

This weakness was not accidental but a result of complex balances within the Council itself: the United States did not want a direct confrontation with the UAE, one of its key partners in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, while Russia and China hinted at their veto power to protect their interests in mining and Sudanese gold.

Secondly: The African Union’s Peace and Security Council… The Voice Closest to the Field

In contrast, the position of the African Union’s Peace and Security Council seemed more realistic and powerful. Its recent statement, which explicitly called for holding militia leaders accountable and protecting civilians, reflected a deeper understanding of the nature of the war as a systematic dismantling project of the Sudanese state, not just an internal conflict.

The African Council moved from the standpoint of fear for regional security, especially from the repercussions of chaos spreading to Chad, Libya, and Egypt, and the escalation of smuggling, weapons, and fighters across borders.

Thirdly: The De Facto Government… Trading Sovereignty for Minerals and Coasts

In the heart of this chaos, the authority in Port Sudan moves as a de facto government, lacking political and popular legitimacy, seeking external recognition at any cost. In Washington, its delegation carried a suspicious “deal,” offering Sudan’s strategic resources – gold, minerals, and Red Sea ports – in exchange for American political support or easing of pressures.

This blatant barter is nothing but a continuation of the legacy of political opportunism practiced by the previous regime, but it is more dangerous today because it comes at a time of weakness, destruction, and absence of any popular mandate.

Fourthly: Cairo and the Equation of Difficult Balance

Dr. Amani Al-Tawil’s reading of the situation reflects the deep Egyptian awareness of the danger of the transformation in Sudan on Arab and African national security alike. Egypt sees that the fall of Al-Fashir is not just the loss of a city but the shift of the center of gravity from Khartoum to the peripheries and the transformation of Darfur into a gateway for foreign influence and mercenaries.

However, Cairo, despite its awareness, still moves within the limits of caution, trying to maintain a balance between supporting the army as a representative of the Sudanese state and avoiding being dragged into an open regional conflict.

Fifthly: The General Scene… Between Disintegration and Resistance

The new political and military maps in Sudan indicate the multiplicity of centers of power and loyalty and the retreat of the concept of the nation-state. There are militias supported from abroad, an army lacking the ability to supply, and armed movements looking for a foothold in any upcoming settlement.

In this vacuum, international forces move according to their pure interests: the UAE seeks ports, Russia seeks gold, and America seeks influence, while the Sudanese people are left between the jaws of hunger, bombing, and displacement.

Towards a Broad Front for the Unity of the Living Forces

In the face of this crisis-ridden scene, there is no horizon for saving Sudan except through the unity of the national living forces in a broad front independent of international and regional axes, redefining the state project on the basis of citizenship, justice, and balanced distribution of power and wealth.

This front is not a political slogan but an existential necessity because external forces, from the Security Council to the de facto government, do not see Sudan as a people but as an area of influence and an open resource.