El-Fasher Reorganizes the Cards

 

The Truth Perspective

 

Ibrahim Shglawi

 

Recent developments in the city of El-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur State, point to a potential shift in the nature of the Sudanese conflict, and in the international community’s approach to the war that has been raging since April 2023. With the deepening humanitarian catastrophe, mounting regional and international pressure, and the emergence of UN efforts to contain the crisis, Sudan appears to be approaching a political and security turning point—one that could redraw the conflict map or at least test the sincerity of all parties toward peace.

 

 

For over a year, El-Fasher has been under a suffocating siege imposed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), in an attempt to overthrow the last remaining stronghold of the Sudanese army in Darfur, paving the way for the parallel government announced in Nairobi. This siege has led to food scarcity, the collapse of the healthcare system, and severe shortages in drinking water. These conditions have triggered mass displacement from neighborhoods and surrounding camps—most notably Abu Shouk—alongside the gradual collapse of shelter centers.

 

 

The United Nations adopted a firmer stance earlier, most notably through Security Council Resolution 2736 issued in June 2024, which called on the RSF to lift the siege on El-Fasher and withdraw its fighters. This resolution represents the first formal international acknowledgment of the gravity of the situation in the city and opens the door for potential direct UN intervention should the militia and its backers continue their intransigence.

 

 

Eyewitness accounts reveal an almost total collapse of daily life. Under artillery shelling and skyrocketing prices of essential goods, food has become rare. Charitable kitchens—once a source of free meals—have become lifelines for many, with a previously free meal now reportedly costing up to 1,000 Sudanese pounds, according to local media.

 

 

Amid this bleak reality, the recent UN initiative emerged as a test of the parties’ willingness to explore non-military options. The phone call between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Sudan’s Sovereign Council head Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan included Guterres’ support for appointing Dr. Kamal Idris as Prime Minister and Al-Burhan’s reaffirmation of his commitment to forming an independent government. This reflects an intention to support political transition and restore peace and security.

 

 

More importantly, Guterres proposed a one-week humanitarian truce in El-Fasher—a proposal that received official approval from Sudan’s Sovereign Council, allowing a small window for humanitarian organizations to operate.

 

 

The RSF’s rejection of the truce exposed its lack of seriousness. RSF advisor Al-Basha Tabeeg described the truce as a “pretext to deliver ammunition to besieged forces,” accusing the army of using civilians as “human shields” and claiming that real humanitarian work is carried out by their so-called “Tasis Forces.”

 

 

This rejection clearly demonstrates the militia’s disregard for the humanitarian tragedy and points to a deeper dilemma: the scorched-earth policy the RSF has pursued since the war’s outbreak—targeting civilians, displacing them, and blocking all humanitarian efforts.

 

 

 

Amid military escalation, signals from negotiation fronts are mixed. In Brussels, Saudi Arabia recently reaffirmed its commitment to reviving the Jeddah platform during a meeting of the advisory group, calling for an end to the war and the prevention of foreign interference. Similarly, comments by RSF advisor Ezzeldin Al-Safi to Asharq Al-Awsat suggested a preliminary willingness to negotiate, albeit tied to clear guarantees and a pre-agreed mediation framework.

 

 

Meanwhile, leaks about unofficial talks between Sudan and the UAE through backchannels reveal deep disagreements over the inclusion of militias in governance. Khartoum strongly opposes granting the RSF any permanent political or military representation, placing the talks at a deadlock.

 

 

On the humanitarian front, a European humanitarian airlift recently delivered aid to Darfur—a development signaling the start of a new relief path that could change realities on the ground, particularly if expanded or turned into a sustainable corridor under UN supervision.

 

 

The facts suggest that all parties—including the UN—are reassessing their positions in light of a strategic deadlock marked by mutual military exhaustion and catastrophic humanitarian decline. The army clings to centralized authority, while the RSF seeks de facto legitimacy by seizing El-Fasher. UN efforts and the formation of a civilian, independent government may present a last opportunity for a political solution—on condition that a ceasefire is secured, Sudan’s sovereignty preserved, and a neutral mediation mechanism is established to support the transition and restore security.

 

 

From the lens of #TheTruthPerspective, UN efforts in El-Fasher and growing international positions could mark the beginning of a new phase centered on “restoring peace and security.” However, this remains contingent on a Sudanese will that transcends military calculations and puts civilian suffering first. It requires halting regional support for the militia and making effective use of humanitarian corridors, as recently announced by Sudan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Al-Harith Idris.

 

 

Today, El-Fasher is not a battlefield, but a true test of the will for peace.

 

Stay safe and well.