Sudan’s Islamists Remain a Major Obstacle to Peace – OpEd

The complex situation in Sudan’s armed conflict is exacerbated by the increasing power of Islamist factions tied to the military. Recent U.S. sanctions against Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan highlight the humanitarian crisis, as international efforts for peace appear futile amidst ongoing violence. The balance of power between the SAF and various Islamist groups stymies pro-democracy movements and raises concerns about future stability in the region.

The ongoing conflict in Sudan is far more complex than mere political rhetoric. With the recent imposition of U.S. sanctions targeting the government led by Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan, primarily for employing chemical weapons, the situation appears increasingly dire. Bringing the warring factions to the negotiating table is not just a matter of regional interests—it hinges on the willingness of various parties embroiled in this relentless conflict.

Since 2018, fighting has intensified the ideological schism in Sudan, pushing civil society to the margins while empowering Islamist groups. These factions have surged militarily, entrenching themselves within key state institutions. The reinvigorated presence of Islamists has fostered connections with Iran and created a conducive environment for extremist groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, ultimately complicating any attempts at peace negotiations.

International eyes remain glued to the atrocities committed by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and their allied jihadists. As clashes continue around Khartoum, tensions risk spilling over into neighboring regions. The outcome of the ongoing battle between SAF and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) could have profound implications across East Africa. Notably, Islamist groups appear emboldened, particularly in light of favorable comments from former President Trump regarding another controversial figure in the region.

Safeguarding the interests of the militarian Islamist factions, Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan, co-opted by these movements, has been sanctioned by the U.S. for committing serious human rights violations. His collaboration with these Islamist groups complicates the security landscape, as power dynamics shift within Sudan. Within this context, questions arise about who holds actual power in these partnerships.

The unfolding alliances suggest that al-Burhan enhanced his power base with the backing of Islamist factions. Notable among these are militias like the Al-Bara’ ibn Malik Brigade and the Sudan Shield Forces, both implicated in atrocities against civilians. Their leaders played pivotal roles in forming the Islamic Military Organization, which operates within Sudan’s military and security framework. Since the December Revolution, around 20 armed militias have emerged, supporting SAF, igniting concerns about their potential access to chemical weapons amid growing power within the SAF.

The connection between the SAF and the Islamist Movement is both intricate and crucial. The military relies on the religious credibility that these factions provide. In return, the Islamists enjoy access to significant resources, such as experienced members within the financial and judicial sectors. This interdependence ensures the Islamist factions remain influential over state matters, extending even into foreign policy, further solidifying relations with Iranian authorities.

While the alliance’s balance is precarious, it remains instrumental in opposing pro-democracy efforts in Sudan. The SAF’s reluctance to engage in peace talks reflects this fragile dependence, as al-Burhan and his supporters appear to be exploiting the situation to maintain a climate of political instability. Former President Trump’s remarks may have inadvertently reinforced the notion that might equates to legitimacy, potentially paving the way for lifting U.S. sanctions on al-Burhan and, in turn, legitimizing an Islamist regime in Sudan.

In summary, the situation in Sudan is pivotal and troubling. The alliances and dynamics within the SAF and Islamist factions complicate any prospects for peace. As international attention remains focused on the actions of these groups, the delicate balance of power further hinders the path toward stability and democracy in the country. There is a pressing need for a clear and strategic engagement from external powers that could influence the warring parties towards a meaningful resolution.

Original Source: www.eurasiareview.com