Since conflict erupted in Sudan in April 2023, the International Rescue Committee estimates that 1.5 million people are internally displaced and 1.3 million refugees have fled to neighboring countries. The current conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, who are battling for control of the country, has exacerbated the nation’s existing humanitarian crisis, leaving 24.8 million people—more than half of the nation’s population—in need of humanitarian aid. Additionally, reports of ethnic cleansing in Darfur have raised alarm among multilateral organizations about the risk of genocide and a repeat of the tragic circumstances seen in the region 20 years ago.

We asked SIS PhD candidate Sahil Mathur to answer a few questions to help us all better understand how regional and global organizations are responding to the crisis in Sudan.

Escalating violence in Sudan that began in April has intensified the range of crises already facing the nation, including mass displacement, a stagnant economy, and high levels of humanitarian need. What role are regional and global multilateral organizations, like the United Nations, playing in mitigating the impacts of the conflict in Sudan?

Broadly, the role of regional and global international organizations involves seeking an end to the violence through achieving a ceasefire, providing and facilitating humanitarian aid and assistance, seeking a lasting political solution to the crisis, and addressing the root causes of the conflict. In the wake of the escalating violence that began in April, regional and international organizations have focused their efforts on short-term outcomes such as getting the warring parties—the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—to agree to a ceasefire and allow delivery of humanitarian aid. The larger issues, including finding a lasting political solution, have, for now, been put on the back burner.

There are a number of regional and international organizations involved in addressing the crisis in Sudan. Aside from the United Nations (UN), several regional organizations in which Sudan holds membership, including the African Union (AU), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the Arab League, have responded to the crisis in different ways.

Through the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS), the UN has engaged with relevant stakeholders in the conflict, including the SAF, RSF, regional organizations, and Sudanese civil society actors, to try to achieve a ceasefire and facilitate humanitarian aid. UNITAMS has played a monitoring and reporting role, providing regular updates on the situation in Sudan to the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UN has also organized donor pledging conferences to raise funds to support humanitarian work. Further, the UN has sought to coordinate diverse regional efforts to manage the crisis. Prior to and following the latest escalation of violence, the UN has been participating in the “trilateral mechanism” on Sudan alongside the AU and IGAD.

Regional organizations have been more active in undertaking mediation efforts. On the day following the eruption of the crisis, IGAD appointed a high-level mediation delegation led by South Sudanese President Salva Kiir Mayardit. An IGAD “quartet” comprising Kenya (chair), Djibouti, Ethiopia, and South Sudan has tried to get the leaders of the warring parties—General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (SAF) and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (RSF)—to meet face to face and cease hostilities. The AU established an “extended mechanism” for the crisis, involving various regional and external actors. Both organizations have determined separate “roadmaps” for the resolution of the crisis.

Despite these measures by regional and international organizations, talks organized by the United States and Saudi Arabia at Jeddah have appeared to have had the most success. Although commitments toward short-term ceasefires and humanitarian access have repeatedly been violated, the “Jeddah process” talks have gone the furthest in getting the warring parties to engage with each other.

I would be remiss not to mention the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC has been investigating alleged genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Sudan since 2005, when the UNSC referred the situation to the Court. Following the surge in violence earlier this year, the ICC began investigating fresh allegations of crimes in Darfur, including ethnically motivated massacres of Masalit civilians.

The African Union, an intergovernmental union consisting of 55 member states located in Africa, suspended Sudan from the union. What is the rationale for this suspension? What does this mean for the African Union’s response to the violence in Sudan?

Sudan has remained suspended from the African Union since October 2021, when al-Burhan staged a coup and overthrew the Transitional Sovereignty Council. Over the last two decades, the African Union has developed a strong norm against unconstitutional changes of government. Whenever there is a coup in a member state, the AU suspends the country, almost as an automatic response. This is in accordance with Article 30 of the AU’s Constitutive Act, which specifies that governments that gain power through unconstitutional means “shall not be allowed to participate in the activities of the Union.”

Membership suspension is a coercive measure; it is designed to prevent the government that gained power through unconstitutional means from reaping the benefits of participating in the AU. The prospect of returning to full participation is meant to serve as an incentive for the crisis-inducing party to restore constitutional order, or at least to agree to a monitored transition process.

Suspension, however, does not preclude continued engagement with the country. After suspending Sudan, the AU has continued to work with Sudanese authorities as part of the trilateral mechanism. Up until the outbreak of violence in April, this process had been going well, with the coup leaders signing a framework agreement in December 2022 envisioning a return to civilian rule.

In practice, however, the suspension has limited the AU’s ability to manage the crisis. For instance, a member of Sudan’s military-led Sovereignty Council refused to engage with the AU roadmap on the grounds that Sudan was suspended from the organization. This has meant that IGAD—which has not suspended Sudan—has led the African response. During the latest round of talks in Jeddah, co-facilitated by the AU and IGAD alongside the United States and Saudi Arabia, IGAD acted as the AU’s representative.

Stronger coercive measures, such as sanctions and military intervention, remain available to the AU. Indeed, the AU has been criticized for “doing nothing” in Sudan—a reference to the lack of a military intervention to resolve the conflict. However, the AU’s Peace and Security Council has hesitated to consider military intervention in a large country such as Sudan. This means that the AU has focused its efforts on mediation, and even in those efforts, it has played a secondary role to IGAD, the United States, and Saudi Arabia.

Reports of large-scale atrocities—similar to those reported at the height of the Darfur genocide 20 years ago—are once again emerging out of Sudan, according to a recent statement from Refugees International. What role can the United States play in addressing atrocities? What role can other nations play?

In today’s geopolitical environment, the United States is best positioned to contribute to addressing atrocities by supporting the work of global and regional multilateral organizations. Following its experience of military and humanitarian interventions in the last two decades, and especially after its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, the United States is hesitant to directly intervene in international conflicts. Countries from the Global South have also pushed back against US and US-led interventions. Backing multilateral initiatives, therefore, appears to be the best option.

The UNSC recently decided to terminate UNITAMS following both a request from the Sudanese authorities and a UN review on the suitability of the mission amid the escalating violence. Revitalizing the role of the UNSC in Sudan, including addressing atrocities from the ongoing conflict, should form a priority for the United States and the other Security Council members.

Providing support to the ICC’s investigation in Sudan is another means of addressing atrocities. When the UNSC referred Sudan to the ICC in 2005, it explicitly denied financial support to the Court. While the United States has historically had a difficult relationship with the ICC, it can contribute by providing support for the Court’s investigations in cases where it does not challenge US interests, such as investigating atrocities in Sudan.

Since the turn of the century, African regional organizations have been at the forefront of addressing crises and conflicts in Africa. In Sudan, IGAD and the AU have undertaken multiple efforts to mediate between the SAF and RSF. Both organizations have called for an approach that espouses “African solutions to African problems,” which could be interpreted as a criticism of the US- and Saudi-led Jeddah process. While these organizations have had less success in preventing large-scale atrocities such as ethnic targeting of civilians, they hold potential. As the African partners in the trilateral mechanism, they had been playing a crucial role in monitoring the implementation of the Juba Peace Agreement that was signed between armed groups in Sudan in 2020. Financial, logistical, and consultative support from the United States and other countries will allow IGAD and the AU to better address the conflict.

Many Western and Gulf countries, including Germany, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have been involved in the response to the Sudan crisis, not to mention the role of Sudan’s neighboring countries. Multiple, parallel efforts to address the crisis, however, have raised fears of duplication and incoherence. Aiding the work of international organizations, such as the UN and the ICC, and regional organizations, such as the AU and IGAD—which have undertaken to coordinate their efforts—forms a viable means for interested countries to channel their support for managing the crisis in Sudan.