dw.com
RSF Withdraws from Khartoum After Sudanese Army Gains
Following weeks of intense fighting, RSF forces withdrew from Khartoum after the Sudanese army regained control of much of the city, leaving over 12 million Sudanese displaced and half the population facing starvation; the conflict, which began two years ago, is due to a power struggle between the Sudanese army and the RSF.
- What is the immediate impact of the RSF's withdrawal from Khartoum on the Sudanese conflict?
- Following three days of claiming the war was ongoing, RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Daglo announced his forces' withdrawal from Khartoum. This follows the army's success in pushing RSF out of much of the city last week. The conflict, now in its second year, is a power struggle between the Sudanese army and the RSF.
- What are the underlying causes of the ongoing power struggle between the Sudanese army and the RSF?
- The RSF's retreat from Khartoum signals a significant shift in the Sudanese conflict. The army's gains raise questions about the RSF's long-term strategy and capacity to challenge the army's control. The conflict has displaced over 12 million Sudanese and led to a severe humanitarian crisis affecting almost half the population.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the conflict for Sudan's stability and humanitarian situation?
- The conflict's future trajectory depends heavily on whether the army can consolidate its gains and the RSF's ability to regroup. International diplomatic efforts are underway, but a resolution remains uncertain given the deeply entrenched power struggle between the two sides. The humanitarian crisis continues to worsen, with nearly half the Sudanese population facing severe hunger.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the military aspects of the conflict, prioritizing statements from military leaders and focusing on military gains and losses. The headline, if any, likely emphasizes the military conflict over the humanitarian crisis. This emphasis could shape public understanding towards a purely military narrative, neglecting the human cost.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, though terms like "visambaratisha" (to crush) when describing the army's intentions might lean towards a more aggressive tone. Using more neutral verbs like "defeat" or "overcome" would improve neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on military statements and actions, giving less weight to civilian perspectives and experiences. The humanitarian crisis, while mentioned, lacks detailed analysis of its impact on the Sudanese population. The omission of civilian voices limits a complete understanding of the conflict's consequences.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between the Sudanese army and the RSF, without fully exploring the complex political and social factors fueling the conflict. Nuances within both sides and potential for alternative solutions are underrepresented.
Gender Bias
The article does not appear to exhibit overt gender bias in its reporting. However, a deeper analysis including quotes from women and exploring the gendered impact of the conflict would strengthen the piece.
Sustainable Development Goals
The ongoing conflict in Sudan, marked by fighting between the Sudanese army and the RSF, directly undermines peace, justice, and the stability of institutions. The conflict has caused significant displacement, suffering, and a humanitarian crisis, hindering progress towards building strong and accountable institutions. The lack of resolution and continued violence exacerbate instability and impede the establishment of sustainable peace.