A moral and factual distortion on Sudan's war

A DANGEROUS myth persists in international discourse that Sudan's devastating conflict is a war between "two equal parties." This framing, repeated in some international and regional circles and a few media reports, is not only false but also deeply unjust. It blurs the moral and legal line between a national army defending its state and people and a militia waging terror against them.

- AMBASSADOR MOHAMED OSMAN AKASHA

To understand Sudan's war, one must look beyond slogans and into logic, evidence, and the lived experience of millions of Sudanese civilians.

Legitimacy cannot be shared

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) is a constitutionally established institution, recognised by international law and tasked with safeguarding Sudan's sovereignty and unity. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia, by contrast, is not a legitimate national force. It is the rebranded face of the Janjaweed militia, a group of supremacists responsible for genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass atrocities in Darfur since 2003.

According to the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2005), the Janjaweed were responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against non-Arab communities.These militias, were reorganised and renamed as the RSF under Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (“Hemedti”), keeping their same command structures and violent practices and also their genocidal nature.

For years, the international community condemned the Janjaweed for mass killings, rape, village burnings, and forced displacement. Yet today, many of those same international actors risk moral amnesia by equating this genocidal militia with Sudan's national army.

The RSF militia seized Sudan's political instability, as in April 2023, it turned its guns on the state, attacking government institutions, airports, and residential areas in an endeavour to consolidate power through a well-planned coup d’état.