Western Experts Analyze the Sudanese War: What Did They Say?
Follow ups – The Citizen
Ambassador Tibor Nagy, former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, believes that Washington is making a historical mistake by adopting a policy of “false neutrality.” He argues that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are a militia that cannot be integrated into a national army or accepted as a political entity because their nature is based on invasion and plunder. In his analysis, he asserts that the continuation of the war is a direct result of the international community’s reluctance to call things by their proper names.
Ambassador Kurt Volker, a senior US diplomat and expert in strategic affairs, links the events in Sudan to the global struggle between chaos and order. He believes that militias supported by regional powers (such as the RSF) aim to undermine the concept of the “nation-state” in Africa in favor of functional entities that serve transnational agendas. He calls for supporting the Sudanese military institution as the only guarantor of stability.
Ambassador John Negroponte, the first US Director of National Intelligence and former US Ambassador to the United Nations, focuses his strategic vision on the necessity of preserving “state sovereignty” and its official institutions. He believes that dealing with a transnational militia as a political entity sets a dangerous precedent that threatens national security in Africa. He points out that double standards in defining “terrorism” are what prevent the Rapid Support Forces from being designated as such, despite the availability of field evidence.
Jessica Moody, a British researcher specializing in African affairs and conflict risks, focuses specifically on “British complicity.” She believes that London is trying to protect its massive investments with the UAE by diluting international resolutions in the Security Council. She asserts that describing what is happening as a “conflict” is misleading; it is, in fact, a “systematic invasion” of civilians by an externally supported militia, and that the world is ignoring the “genocide” in Darfur.
Dr. Joseph Siegle, Director of Research at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS), analyzes the threat posed by militia models to democracy. He argues that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) represent a model of the “privatization of violence,” where mercenaries and regional funding are used to undermine the nation-state. He warns that failing to designate these groups as terrorist or transnational criminals will encourage other regional powers to replicate the experience in other African countries.
Sir Nicholas Kay, a senior British diplomat and former UN representative, believes the problem lies in the “fragmentation of solutions.” In his analysis, he criticizes the lack of real pressure on the militia’s financial networks abroad. He argues that the international community is treating the “symptoms” (such as displacement) while ignoring the “disease”—the continuous flow of weapons and money across borders. He asserts that stability will not return as long as militias remain a parallel entity to the state.
Robert Rotberg, Professor of Governance and Foreign Policy at Harvard University, focuses on the concept of “failure of international leadership.” Rotberg argues that the failure to designate the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) as a terrorist organization represents a “moral collapse” for the international system, as the militia fulfills all the criteria of a terrorist organization: targeted killings, destruction of infrastructure, and illicit financing. He believes that Washington is sacrificing humanitarian values for the sake of “geopolitical balances” with the United Arab Emirates.
Natalia Kanem, despite her position at the United Nations, produces shocking technical reports (outside the political context). She emphasizes that the scale of systematic sexual violence perpetrated by the RSF is not “individual transgressions” but rather a deliberate “military strategy” to fracture the social fabric. Strategic analysts cite her reports to demonstrate that this behavior is characteristic of “terrorist organizations,” not armies fighting for power.
Dr. Andreas Schuck, a German strategic analyst specializing in armed conflicts, analyzes the “militia propaganda” in the West and argues that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have successfully hired international public relations firms to market themselves as “defenders of democracy” (Western disinformation), while the reality on the ground proves they are a chaotic entity threatening the stability of the Red Sea and European security (through waves of migration and human trafficking).
Ambassador Frank Wisner, an American diplomat and expert on Middle Eastern and African affairs, warns against a “Libyan model” in Sudan. He believes that the continued existence of the RSF as an independent force will lead to the de facto partition of Sudan, a scenario rejected by the Sudanese state. He calls for supporting the unity of the Sudanese army, considering it the only institution capable of preventing Sudan from becoming a permanent hotbed of transnational terrorism.