dw.com
Sudan's Khartoum "Free," But Civil War Far From Over
Sudan's military declared Khartoum "free" from RSF control, but the civil war continues, posing the risk of national partition amid a devastating humanitarian crisis affecting some 12.5 million people.
- What are the historical roots of the conflict between the Sudanese army and the RSF?
- The conflict stems from a power struggle between the Sudanese army and the RSF, two groups that were once allies. Their cooperation to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 deteriorated, leading to a coup in 2021 and the current civil war. The RSF's entrenchment in Khartoum, despite the army's superior equipment, was a pivotal turning point.
- What are the immediate consequences of the Sudanese military's claim of victory in Khartoum?
- Sudan's military declared Khartoum "free" after advances against the RSF paramilitary, but the civil war is far from over. RSF still controls large parts of the country, raising fears of partition. The conflict, which began two years ago during a democratic transition, has caused a devastating humanitarian crisis, with millions displaced and tens of thousands dead.
- What are the potential long-term impacts of the ongoing conflict on Sudan's territorial integrity and its citizens' well-being?
- The current situation may lead to a partitioned Sudan, with the RSF controlling western regions and the army controlling central Sudan. This scenario presents a dire humanitarian outlook, exacerbating an already catastrophic crisis. International intervention may become crucial to preventing further escalation and fragmentation.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article is subtly biased towards the government's narrative. The headline and opening paragraphs emphasize Burhan's declaration of victory, presenting it as a significant development, even though its accuracy is questionable. The subsequent paragraphs acknowledge the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis, but the initial framing might shape the reader's perception towards a premature conclusion of the war.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral but contains instances that could be perceived as subtly biased. For example, the description of Burhan's declaration as "triumphant" and the use of phrases like "brutal offensives" when discussing the RSF's actions may convey a particular viewpoint. More neutral alternatives could be used, such as 'Burhan declared' instead of "Burhan triumphantly declared" and "offensives" instead of "brutal offensives.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the government's perspective, presenting Burhan's declaration as a potential turning point without sufficient critical analysis. It mentions the RSF's control of large swathes of land but lacks detailed information on their current capabilities, strategies, and potential for continued conflict. The article also omits detailed analysis of international involvement beyond a brief mention of alleged UAE support for the RSF, a claim denied by all parties involved. The humanitarian crisis is mentioned but lacks in-depth exploration of the specifics of the crisis and the international response.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the conflict, focusing on the potential for a partition of the country as the primary outcome without exploring other possibilities. The narrative frames the situation as a binary choice between government control and partition, potentially ignoring the possibility of protracted conflict or other forms of power-sharing arrangements.
Sustainable Development Goals
The ongoing civil war in Sudan severely undermines peace, justice, and the effectiveness of state institutions. The conflict has led to immense suffering, displacement, and a humanitarian crisis, highlighting the failure of institutions to protect citizens and maintain order. The potential for further partitioning of the country further weakens state structures and prospects for peace.