Is Sudan Facing Another Partition?

Sudan’s crisis remains deeply troubling—marked by destruction, suffering, and an alarming lack of global attention. As the conflict drags on and the hardships endured by the Sudanese people intensify, the chances of a meaningful resolution continue to diminish. While the war might be perceived as a straightforward clash between two opposing forces, the reality is far more intricate. Deep-seated internal political fractures fuel the conflict, while international actors strategically exploit these divisions, further complicating efforts to establish effective governance in Sudan.

Recent military developments have shifted the balance on the ground. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have successfully reclaimed significant territories from the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), including Um Rawaba in North Kordofan, along with key areas in Sennar, Gezira, and Khartoum. In light of these advances, army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has declared the imminent formation of a new government—one designed to align with the military’s broader objectives.

Addressing civil political forces in Port Sudan, Burhan stated that the upcoming government could take the form of either a “caretaker government” or a “wartime government.” The central mission, as he emphasized, would be to bolster the SAF in its efforts to “free Sudan from rebels.” However, this move raises critical questions: Will such a government genuinely serve the interests of the Sudanese people, or will it deepen the military’s hold on power? Given the volatile situation, any new political arrangement will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of Sudan’s ongoing crisis.

Burhan’s announcement was further reinforced by the Sudanese foreign ministry’s unveiling of a comprehensive roadmap for peace. This strategic framework outlined a series of crucial measures, including the initiation of an inclusive national dialogue, the establishment of a transitional government composed of independent technocrats, and constitutional reforms designed to garner widespread support. The roadmap, positioned as a blueprint for restoring stability, reflects the government’s intention to navigate the crisis through structured political engagement.

A key stipulation within the roadmap emphasized that “laying down arms and evacuating civilian areas are fundamental prerequisites for any negotiations with the rebels.” The document also made it clear that no ceasefire would be entertained unless the siege on El Fasher was lifted, followed by the complete withdrawal of RSF forces from Khartoum, West Kordofan, and the Darfur region. These conditions underscore the government’s firm stance on security as a precondition for dialogue, raising questions about the feasibility of immediate peace efforts.

Amid these unfolding developments, Sudan’s fragile political landscape has faced further turbulence. The Sudanese Coordination of Civil Democratic Forces, known as Taqadom, has recently fractured into two distinct coalitions—each advocating a different vision for the country’s future. This split highlights the deepening political rifts within Sudan, adding another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation. As competing factions maneuver for influence, the prospects for a unified approach to peace remain uncertain, reinforcing the challenges facing any future governance structure.

Sudan’s fractured political arena has witnessed a significant realignment, as key civilian factions—formerly associated with the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) within the now-defunct Taqadom coalition—have rallied to form a new opposition alliance. Named the Civil Democratic Alliance of Revolutionary Forces, this coalition is driven by the mission of ending the war and restoring civilian rule. Spearheaded by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, the formation of this alliance signals a renewed push by pro-democracy forces to reclaim Sudan’s political future amidst the ongoing turmoil. Meanwhile, a contrasting power bloc has emerged, predominantly composed of armed groups and certain factions that had aligned with the FFC following the 2021 coup. These actors have consolidated their strength under a rival alliance, with a clear objective of establishing a parallel government in areas currently under the control of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This rival coalition, officially named the “Sudan Founding Alliance,” was formally introduced during a high-profile conference in Nairobi, underscoring the deepening division between Sudan’s political and military stakeholders.

The now-dissolved Taqadom coalition, which originally brought together FFC-affiliated entities and various civil society groups, was established in October 2023, with its inaugural conference held in Addis Ababa the following spring. However, internal rifts regarding the formation of a parallel government ultimately led to its downfall. The coalition’s dissolution, finalized earlier this month in a virtual meeting, was the culmination of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the RSF and its allies, who successfully leveraged internal divisions to dismantle the bloc.

The FFC itself, a revolutionary alliance composed of democratic political parties and civil society organizations, had played a pivotal role in Sudan’s third revolution. However, its fragmentation has now led to the emergence of two opposing fronts—one advocating for a civilian-led transition and the other backing RSF-controlled governance structures.

On 18 February, the Sudan Founding Alliance launched its first official session in Nairobi, where RSF-aligned leaders and allies convened to deliberate on a foundational charter for their envisioned parallel government. The conference saw the participation of notable figures, including Abdelaziz al-Hilu, leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North; Ibrahim al-Mirghani, a key figure in the Democratic Unionist Party; and Fadlallah Burma Nassir, leader of the National Umma Party. Nassir’s presence was particularly striking, as his party had previously opposed the creation of a parallel government, raising questions about shifting allegiances and behind-the-scenes negotiations.

As Sudan’s political factions continue to navigate these volatile dynamics, the competing alliances reflect a broader struggle over the country’s governance, with each bloc seeking to redefine the nation’s future amid an ongoing and devastating war. The evolving situation raises critical concerns about whether these realignments will pave the way for a political resolution or further entrench divisions in an already fragile state.

The presence of Fadlallah Burma Nassir at the Nairobi conference has sparked intense controversy within the National Umma Party, with party heavyweight Rabah al-Sadiq condemning his participation as a “political suicide” and a direct assault on the party’s integrity. In an official statement, the party firmly distanced itself from Nassir’s actions, asserting that neither he nor any other member had been authorized to represent the party at the event. This internal discord highlights the broader ideological fractures within Sudan’s civilian and political factions, as figures within the same party find themselves on opposing sides of the country’s escalating crisis.

At the conference, Abdelaziz al-Hilu, leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North, delivered a striking keynote speech that directly challenged the longstanding political structures in Khartoum. “The cards of religion, tribe, and ethnicity are merely tools used by the ruling elites to marginalize those outside their circle,” he declared, vowing to put an end to such exclusionary tactics. His remarks reflect a broader frustration with Sudan’s entrenched power dynamics, reinforcing his vision of a more inclusive political order that transcends traditional fault lines.

However, the Nairobi conference did not go unnoticed by Sudan’s ruling authorities. Just hours after its opening session, Sudan’s foreign ministry issued a strong condemnation of Kenya for hosting the gathering. In its statement, the ministry accused Kenya of failing to uphold its international obligations, citing violations of the United Nations Charter, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and international law principles, including those outlined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This diplomatic rebuke signals rising tensions between Sudan and regional actors, as Khartoum seeks to delegitimize the parallel government efforts spearheaded by RSF-aligned factions.

Simultaneously, the foreign ministry denounced a brutal massacre carried out by RSF forces in El-Geteina, located in White Nile State. The attack, which left 433 people dead—including newborn babies—has been widely condemned as yet another horrifying chapter in Sudan’s ongoing war. The scale of the atrocity underscores the relentless human toll of the conflict, as civilians continue to bear the brunt of unchecked violence. While Sudan’s leadership seeks to portray the RSF as a rogue faction committing war crimes, the broader question remains: will such condemnations translate into meaningful action, or will the suffering of ordinary Sudanese citizens persist amid a paralyzed political landscape? As Sudan’s crisis deepens, the interplay of political fragmentation, armed conflict, and regional diplomacy continues to shape the nation’s trajectory. The coming weeks may prove critical in determining whether Sudan edges closer to a negotiated settlement or plunges further into chaos.

Unfazed by Sudan’s diplomatic outcry, the Kenyan government remained steadfast in its justification for hosting the Nairobi conference. Officials defended the decision as part of Kenya’s longstanding commitment to conflict resolution across Africa, emphasizing that the event was intended to provide a neutral platform for dialogue among affected stakeholders. This response underscores Kenya’s broader role as a regional mediator, but it also highlights the growing rift between Sudan and its East African neighbor—a divide that could have lasting implications for regional stability.

While an RSF-backed government may struggle to achieve widespread international recognition, dismissing this development as mere propaganda would be shortsighted. The evolving situation presents multiple possible outcomes, and the Nairobi conference has only reinforced the Sudanese political system’s chronic inability to resolve its crises independently. The competing factions’ failure to establish a unifying framework has created a power vacuum—one that external actors, both regional and global, may seek to exploit for their own strategic interests.

Perhaps the most alarming prospect is the potential for Sudan to face another territorial fracture. The establishment of a parallel government amidst an active war could push the country toward a new secessionist crisis, reminiscent of South Sudan’s independence in 2011. However, today’s circumstances present a starkly different reality. Unlike the secession of South Sudan, which was preceded by decades of negotiations and international mediation, the current fragmentation lacks a structured roadmap. Instead, it is unfolding in real-time, fueled by armed conflict, external interventions, and the absence of a legitimate peace process.

Should the political impasse persist, Sudan may find itself at a crossroads—either edging toward a precarious power-sharing arrangement or slipping into irreversible territorial disintegration. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether the country’s leaders can steer Sudan away from collapse or if history is set to repeat itself in a far more unpredictable and chaotic manner.

South Sudan’s independence in 2011 was the result of a peaceful referendum, allowing its people to exercise their right to self-determination. However, this historic separation came at a significant cost to Sudan, both politically and economically, stripping the country of a region deeply embedded in its national identity. Any future secession within Sudan, however, would likely unfold under far more devastating circumstances—one marked not by diplomacy and a structured transition, but by relentless conflict, destruction, and widespread human suffering.

The potential establishment of a rival government in RSF-controlled territories represents not only a direct challenge to the authority of the Port Sudan-based administration but also a dangerous catalyst for deeper ethnic and regional divisions. Such a move could inflame tensions across the country, triggering new cycles of violence that may spiral into a prolonged and bloody confrontation. The already fragile fabric of Sudanese society could be torn apart, with warlords, political elites, and external actors exploiting the divisions to further their own agendas.

Yet, amid the looming chaos, Sudan still has a narrow window of opportunity to preserve its territorial integrity and prevent complete disintegration. Securing national unity in the face of such unprecedented turmoil will require decisive political leadership, an unwavering sense of national responsibility, and a collective effort to prioritize the interests of the Sudanese people over factional gains. Any sustainable resolution must go beyond military victories or political maneuvering—it must address the deep-rooted grievances that have fueled the nation’s descent into war.

However, the burden of ending this crisis falls largely on the Sudanese people themselves, particularly the civilian population, as international actors remain largely disengaged. With shifting global geopolitical priorities and a waning appetite for external intervention, Sudan cannot afford to rely on foreign powers to chart its path to stability. The people must determine their own future, even as the world watches from the sidelines.