dw.com
RSF Withdraws from Khartoum Amid Ongoing Sudanese Civil War
The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have withdrawn from Sudan's capital, Khartoum, after nearly two years of control, marking a significant turning point in the civil war that has displaced over 12 million people and caused widespread famine, despite ongoing international efforts for peace.
- What is the immediate impact of the RSF's withdrawal from Khartoum on the Sudanese civil war?
- The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have withdrawn from Sudan's capital, Khartoum, after nearly two years of control during the civil war. This follows the Sudanese army's declaration of Khartoum's liberation and marks a significant turning point in the conflict. However, the RSF commander vowed to return, rejecting any negotiations with the army.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the ongoing conflict in Sudan for regional stability and humanitarian efforts?
- The RSF's withdrawal from Khartoum could represent a tactical maneuver rather than a decisive defeat, as their commander indicated an intention to return. The continued commitment to armed conflict by both sides, despite international efforts to mediate peace, suggests a protracted and devastating war. This conflict will likely continue to worsen the already dire humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
- How has the international community responded to the ongoing conflict in Sudan, and what is the extent of its involvement in peace negotiations?
- The RSF's withdrawal is a symbolic victory for the Sudanese army, reclaiming key sites like the presidential palace and airport. This shift in control, however, does not indicate an end to the conflict, as both sides remain committed to fighting, highlighting the deep divisions and lack of trust. The ongoing war has led to a severe humanitarian crisis, with over 12 million displaced and famine declared in some areas.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the military actions and statements from both sides, presenting a narrative centered around conflict and military victories. Headlines and the opening sentence immediately establish the RSF's withdrawal as the main focus. This framing might overshadow the humanitarian crisis and the suffering of civilians, giving more prominence to the military aspects of the conflict. The use of words like "symbolic turning point" indicates a significant shift in the power dynamics, but it remains focused on the military rather than the human consequences.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral in its description of events. However, terms like "diabolical movement" used by Dagalo are loaded and contribute to a negative portrayal of the Sudanese army. The use of words such as "blitz" and "reclaimed" could be perceived as slightly biased toward the army's perspective. More neutral alternatives could have been employed, such as "offensive" and "secured control of".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on military actions and statements from both sides, but provides limited information on the perspectives of Sudanese civilians and their experiences of the war. The humanitarian crisis is mentioned, but there's a lack of detail on the scale of suffering or the specific impacts on different communities. The article also lacks details on the potential long-term political consequences of the RSF's withdrawal and the challenges of establishing lasting peace.
False Dichotomy
The narrative presents a false dichotomy by emphasizing the military conflict and the opposing statements of the army and RSF leaders. It simplifies the situation by portraying it primarily as a fight between two forces, neglecting the complexities of internal political dynamics, ethnic tensions, and international involvement. The presentation of the conflict as solely a military struggle overshadows potential diplomatic solutions or the roles of other actors.
Gender Bias
The article primarily focuses on statements and actions of male leaders from both sides of the conflict, largely omitting the voices and experiences of women. There is no discussion of the specific impact of the war on women or their roles in navigating the crisis. The absence of gender-specific analysis indicates a potential oversight in coverage.
Sustainable Development Goals
The ongoing civil war in Sudan has created the world's worst hunger crisis, affecting over 12 million people and leading to famine in certain regions. This directly impacts the progress of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by exacerbating food insecurity and malnutrition.