A political alliance between Sudan’s RSF paramilitary group and the SPLM-N rebel faction poses significant threats to the Sudanese Armed Forces, potentially changing the military landscape. This agreement may pave the way for a parallel government, heightening fears of regional secession and conflict escalation amidst escalating humanitarian crises.
Sudanese analysts warn that a recent political agreement between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and a faction of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army-North (SPLM-N) could escalate into a military alliance, posing significant challenges to the Sudanese Armed Forces. This agreement, presented in Kenya, aims to establish a parallel government in RSF-controlled regions, raising concerns amid ongoing military operations against the RSF in the capital region of Khartoum.
The RSF has maintained control over key areas in Sudan, including Khartoum International Airport and several military bases. Meanwhile, SPLM-N has historically held power in southern regions like South Kordofan and the Blue Nile. The novel alliance could unite diverse ethnic groups that have long faced discrimination, potentially exacerbating existing tensions within the country.
Analysts recognize the potential military strength of this alliance, suggesting it could create a formidable force complicating the dynamics of the ongoing civil war. Ibrahim Mahdy, a retired army general, cautioned that this military cooperation should not be underestimated as it could intensify the conflict.
The establishment of a parallel government in RSF territories has sparked fears of secession among western regions of Sudan. Such an outcome could inspire other discontented areas, particularly in the eastern part, where demands for governmental support have been growing amidst ongoing inequalities.
The ethnic composition of the regions involved is complex, with historical tensions primarily between farming communities of ethnic Africans and Arab cattle herders. Both the RSF and SPLM-N have been accused of committing war crimes, and the RSF’s claimed ethnic inclusivity in Darfur has been contradicted by allegations of ethnic cleansing against Africans.
Some political analysts argue that the effectiveness of the RSF-SPLM-N alliance on the battlefield may be limited. Concerns have been raised about the RSF’s previous targeting of SPLM-N allies, suggesting that while the alliance carries political weight, it may not translate into coordinated military action.
The ongoing civil unrest in Sudan has resulted in catastrophic humanitarian consequences, with millions displaced and facing severe hunger, leading to calls for international concern over the RSF’s governance in conflict zones. Historical parallels to the south’s 2011 secession highlight the fragility of Sudan’s national integrity, deepening fears of further fragmentation.
Global reactions to the recent developments have included statements from UN officials expressing concerns over the emerging parallel government and its potential to exacerbate Sudan’s fragmentation. Continuing sanctions against military leaders reflect international apprehension regarding the conflict’s escalation and human rights violations.
In conclusion, the recent RSF-SPLM-N alliance presents a potential shift in the balance of power within Sudan’s ongoing civil conflict. While this agreement may unify disparate regional voices, it also risks igniting further discord and aspirations for secession. As humanitarian crises deepen, the implications of this new alliance underscore the urgency for international intervention to prevent further destabilization and assess governance strategies in conflict-affected areas.
Original Source: www.thenationalnews.com
