dw.com
International Peace Talks for Sudan Fail as Conflict Enters Third Year
International officials convened in London on Tuesday to strategize for peace in Sudan, two years after the conflict began between the Sudanese army and the RSF paramilitary group; neither warring party attended. The fighting, stemming from a power struggle between two generals, has caused a massive humanitarian crisis, displacing over 13 million and killing tens of thousands.
- What are the immediate humanitarian consequences of the ongoing conflict in Sudan, and what international actions are being taken to address them?
- The two-year conflict in Sudan, marked by intense fighting between the Sudanese army and the RSF paramilitary group, has displaced over 13 million people and claimed tens of thousands of lives. The ongoing violence has triggered a major humanitarian crisis, with millions needing urgent aid and 12 million women and girls facing gender-based violence risks. International efforts to mediate peace talks in London are underway, though neither warring party is present.
- How did the power struggle between the Sudanese army and the RSF paramilitary group escalate into a widespread conflict, and what are the key territorial divisions resulting from the fighting?
- The conflict in Sudan stems from a power struggle between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Daglo following a 2021 coup. The fighting has led to a de facto division of the country, with the army controlling the east and north, and the RSF controlling parts of Darfur and the south. This situation underscores the urgent need for comprehensive peace negotiations involving all stakeholders to stabilize the nation.
- What are the long-term implications of the Sudanese conflict for regional stability and the broader international community, and what critical steps are needed to prevent further deterioration?
- The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan necessitates sustained international support. The conflict's impact extends beyond immediate casualties, creating long-term challenges related to food insecurity, displacement, and the potential for further escalation of violence. The absence of both warring factions at the London peace talks indicates a major hurdle in achieving lasting peace and emphasizes the critical need for a comprehensive strategy that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the humanitarian catastrophe, which is undeniably severe. The headline (if any) likely highlights the suffering and international efforts. This emphasis, while understandable given the scale of the crisis, might unintentionally overshadow the political complexities and the underlying power struggles driving the conflict. The focus on international aid and the condemnation of violence by international bodies presents a specific narrative, potentially neglecting other relevant aspects of the ongoing conflict. For example, the article could explore alternative approaches to peacebuilding.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual in reporting the events and statistics. However, phrases like "janga kubwa zaidi la njaa na wakimbizi" (greatest famine and refugee crisis) and descriptions of the conflict as causing "maafa makubwa" (great disasters) are emotionally charged and could sway readers' perceptions. More neutral language would enhance objectivity, for example replacing these with 'significant food shortages' and 'substantial displacement'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the humanitarian crisis and international response, but gives less detail on the political and historical context leading to the conflict. While the 2021 coup and the role of Omar al-Bashir are mentioned, a deeper exploration of the power struggles and underlying causes of the conflict would provide a more complete picture. The perspectives of ordinary Sudanese citizens beyond the statistics on casualties and displacement are largely absent.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the conflict as a struggle between two factions, the Sudanese army and the RSF. It does touch on the complex historical and political context, but doesn't fully delve into the diverse actors and interests involved in the conflict, potentially neglecting the roles of various tribal groups, international actors, and other political entities within Sudan. The narrative subtly suggests a dichotomy of 'good' international actors attempting to resolve the crisis and 'bad' warring factions obstructing peace, lacking nuance.
Gender Bias
While the article mentions the vulnerability of women and girls to gender-based violence, this aspect is not given significant focus. The impact of the conflict on women and girls is mentioned in passing but is not a central theme. More in-depth analysis of the gendered impacts of conflict and humanitarian crises is needed for a more complete picture. More specific examples of gender-based violence would strengthen the analysis.
Sustainable Development Goals
The ongoing conflict in Sudan, stemming from a power struggle between rival generals, has caused widespread violence, displacement, and a humanitarian crisis. The absence of both warring parties from peace talks further hinders progress towards a peaceful resolution and stable institutions. The conflict undermines the rule of law and security within Sudan. International efforts, such as the London conference, aim to address the conflict but their success is uncertain due to the lack of participation from key actors.