Sudan’s Military Gambit: When “Sovereignty” Becomes a Shield for Perpetual War

The Sudanese Armed Forces’ rejection of peace negotiations in favor of total military victory reveals a dangerous paradox: those claiming to defend sovereignty may be its greatest threat.

The Context of Conflict

Sudan has been engulfed in a devastating civil war since April 2023, when tensions between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) exploded into open conflict. What began as a power struggle between two military factions has evolved into a humanitarian catastrophe, displacing millions and pushing the country toward famine. The international community has repeatedly called for negotiations, but as this latest rejection shows, the SAF leadership remains committed to a military solution.

The SAF’s insistence on “military victory” as the only path forward reflects a broader pattern in Sudan’s troubled political history. Since independence, military institutions have positioned themselves as guardians of national unity and sovereignty, using these concepts to justify their grip on power. This latest stance suggests that even amid unprecedented suffering, the military leadership views compromise as tantamount to national betrayal.

The Sovereignty Smokescreen

The invocation of “sovereignty” by the SAF deserves scrutiny. While sovereignty traditionally refers to a nation’s right to self-governance free from external interference, Sudan’s military has weaponized this concept to resist both international mediation and domestic power-sharing arrangements. This rhetorical strategy allows the SAF to frame any negotiated settlement as a capitulation to foreign interests, even as their continued fighting destroys the very nation they claim to protect.

Public reaction within Sudan remains divided and difficult to gauge amid the chaos of war. However, civil society groups and pro-democracy activists have increasingly criticized both warring parties for prioritizing military objectives over civilian lives. The diaspora community has been particularly vocal, organizing protests and advocacy campaigns calling for immediate ceasefire and inclusive peace talks. Yet these voices struggle to penetrate the militarized discourse that dominates official channels.

The Price of “Victory”

The SAF’s commitment to total military victory carries profound implications for Sudan’s future. Even if such a victory were achievable—a dubious proposition given the RSF’s significant territorial control—it would likely result in continued military rule indefinitely. This perpetuates a cycle that has plagued Sudan for decades: military institutions claiming temporary emergency powers that become permanent features of governance.

Moreover, the international community faces a dilemma. While respecting sovereignty is a cornerstone of international law, the principle of responsibility to protect suggests intervention when states fail to protect their own citizens. The SAF’s position effectively blocks diplomatic off-ramps while humanitarian conditions deteriorate daily. Regional powers, particularly Egypt and the UAE, maintain their own interests in the conflict’s outcome, further complicating mediation efforts.

Beyond the Battlefield

The deeper tragedy is that Sudan’s rich civil society—which led the 2019 revolution that toppled Omar al-Bashir—finds itself sidelined once again. The binary choice between SAF and RSF military rule excludes the possibility of civilian-led transition that millions of Sudanese demanded. By rejecting negotiations and insisting on continued military rule, the SAF effectively declares that Sudan’s future will be decided by force rather than consent.

The international community must reckon with the limitations of traditional diplomatic approaches when dealing with actors who view negotiation itself as defeat. Sanctions, humanitarian aid, and diplomatic pressure have had limited impact on the SAF’s calculations. New strategies may be needed, potentially including more robust support for Sudanese civil society organizations operating in exile and creative approaches to humanitarian access that bypass military gatekeepers.

As Sudan burns, we must ask ourselves: When military leaders invoke sovereignty to justify endless war and permanent rule, whose sovereignty are they really defending—the nation’s or their own?