lemonde.fr
Sudanese Army Recaptured Khartoum State from RSF Paramilitaries
The Sudanese army announced the full recapture of Khartoum state from the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group on May 20th, after a major offensive in Omdurman. This follows the army's March recapture of the capital and escalating RSF drone attacks, allegedly supported by the UAE, on key infrastructure, including Port Sudan, exacerbating the dire humanitarian situation with over 2,300 new cholera cases and widespread power outages.
- What is the immediate impact of the Sudanese army's recapture of Khartoum state from the RSF?
- The Sudanese army announced on May 20th that it had completely retaken Khartoum state from the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitaries. This follows a large-scale operation targeting the RSF's last positions in Omdurman. The army's recapture of Khartoum, including Omdurman, marks a significant shift in the ongoing conflict.
- How are the competing factions in Sudan attempting to gain international legitimacy amidst the ongoing conflict?
- The army's victory in Khartoum is part of a broader power struggle between General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and RSF leader Mohammed Hamdan Daglo. Al-Burhan has appointed a new prime minister and two women to the sovereignty council, aiming to gain international legitimacy. Simultaneously, he canceled the council's oversight powers, consolidating his control.
- What are the long-term implications of the escalating conflict, including the RSF's use of drones and the worsening humanitarian crisis, for Sudan's stability and future?
- The conflict's escalation, including RSF drone strikes on Port Sudan and Khartoum's power grid, severely impacts the humanitarian crisis. Damage to infrastructure and the spread of cholera worsen the already dire situation. The RSF's use of drones, allegedly supplied by the UAE (though denied), signifies a new phase in the war, potentially prolonging the conflict.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the conflict largely from the Sudanese army's perspective, highlighting its successes in retaking Khartoum. The headline itself, if there was one, likely emphasized the army's victory. The use of quotes from the army spokesperson strengthens this framing bias. While the RSF's actions are mentioned, they are presented mostly as attacks or negative actions, reinforcing a negative perception. The article highlights the army's actions to legitimize its position internationally (appointment of a PM and women to the council), further amplifying this perspective.
Language Bias
The language used leans towards describing the army's actions as 'operations', 'offensives', or 'liberating', while the RSF's actions are described as 'attacks' or 'strikes', which carry negative connotations. The term 'rebels' to describe the RSF further reinforces a negative portrayal. Neutral alternatives could include using terms like 'clashes', 'military actions' for both sides, and replacing 'rebels' with 'paramilitary forces' or a more neutral term.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the army's perspective and announcements, potentially omitting the RSF's narrative and counter-arguments. The article mentions RSF drone attacks and their impact but doesn't delve into the RSF's justifications or motivations for these actions. Furthermore, the article lacks detailed information on civilian casualties and the overall humanitarian crisis, focusing more on the military aspects of the conflict. The extent of damage caused by the conflict to civilian infrastructure is mentioned but not elaborated upon. The inclusion of only one expert opinion (Kholood Khair) on the political motives of General Al-Bourhane's actions could be considered a bias by omission if other perspectives exist.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified narrative by focusing primarily on the conflict between the Sudanese army and the RSF, while largely neglecting other potential actors or underlying issues contributing to the conflict. It does not explore alternative solutions or paths to peace. The article presents a binary of 'army' vs 'RSF', while complex geopolitical factors, tribal dynamics, and economic inequalities are not deeply explored.
Gender Bias
The article mentions the appointment of two women to the sovereignty council as a positive step towards inclusivity and international legitimacy. However, it doesn't provide detailed information about their roles, qualifications, or prior experiences which could contribute to a more nuanced understanding of their appointments. The focus on the appointment of women in this context might unintentionally downplay the broader implications of gender inequality in the Sudanese conflict, or lack thereof.
Sustainable Development Goals
The ongoing conflict in Sudan, marked by fighting between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), severely undermines peace, justice, and strong institutions. The conflict has led to a humanitarian crisis, displacement, and damage to infrastructure, hindering the establishment of stable governance and rule of law. The power struggle between General Al-Bourhane and General Daglo further destabilizes the country and prevents the building of effective institutions.