The War in Sudan: context and interpretation

by Ahmed Yaquob

There is no room for disagreement: the war in Sudan is the product of deep-rooted, historical internal contradictions. In truth, Sudan has been at war with itself since even before its independence. The current conflict has elevated these internal tensions to a stage where violence has become the logical and final outcome of structural imbalances concerning identity, wealth, power, and systemic marginalization—plunging the entire nation into the furnace of war. Without delving too deeply into Sudan’s complex history, this brief introduction captures the internal context of the turmoil unleashed on April 15th.

However, any analysis that focuses solely on these internal contradictions and interprets the war through a purely domestic lens is shortsighted. Such a view lacks the political sensitivity demanded by regional and global realities. A contextualization that overlooks the grand strategic visions of Western powers presents a crippled understanding of the situation.

The Western state model as a neo-colonial context

More than a century after Africa’s arbitrary division by Western powers at the Berlin Conference on November 15, 1884—a division that, despite its deceptively organized geometric lines, disregarded the continent’s social, cultural, and historical fabric—and half a century after most African nations gained independence, the result has been the importation of the nation-state model.

Adopted as the legal and political framework for governing African countries, this model has, over decades, failed to fulfil the aspirations of African peoples for development. Instead, these artificially imposed state structures have, in one way or another, fueled unrest and conflict across the continent. This politically engineered reality, based on the arbitrary borders of Berlin and their inherited problems, persists to this day.

Thus, decades of importing the Western state model, along with the significant distortions it has caused, are among the reasons for the continued dominance of tribal identity as a primary institution in political, social, and economic life. This has created ongoing tension with the central state, perpetuating instability and conflict across Africa—significantly influencing political decisions and alliances, and ultimately landing many nations on the list of “failed states.” This is a term often used by the West, which critics argue paves the way for a new form of influence through various projects and local and foreign agents, aiming to reshape African nations to external designs.

A Regional geopolitical battleground

The war in Sudan—its causes cannot be found in internal factors alone. Even its internal contradictions are, in one way or another, influenced by external forces. From another perspective, the Sudanese war is unfolding as part of a grand project being orchestrated in the Horn of Africa, the Nile Basin, and East Africa. Sudan is but one piece in a conflict that threatens to engulf the continent’s entire eastern flank, part of a larger scheme aimed at destabilizing the region, controlling resources and waterways, and dominating global trade routes. This plan requires the weakening of these nations to achieve absolute hegemony.

The Horn of Africa includes nations such as Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Ethiopia. The Nile Basin comprises Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, and Egypt.

A glance reveals overlapping interests and porous borders. The Eastern Nile Basin holds immense geopolitical significance due to its proximity to international trade routes via the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the Arabian Gulf. Its overlap with the Horn of Africa means nearly half of the Nile Basin countries are part of the Horn. The current regional turbulence and the scramble by external powers to gain footholds pose a strategic threat to the water and regional security of these nations—especially as the rhetoric of conflict overshadows cooperation, endangering the interests of their peoples.

A significant majority of these countries suffer from:

• A profound crisis in the very concept of the state.
• Civil strife and internal conflict.
• Systemic corruption.
• The dual burden of crushing poverty and severe food insecurity.
• Recurring drought.
• Hosting a proliferation of foreign military bases.

Take Djibouti, for example: despite being an extremely small nation (just 23,000 square kilometers), it hosts six foreign military bases (from the U.S., France, China, Japan, Spain, and Italy). This makes it a geopolitical powder keg, given the conflicting interests of these powers.

The Grand Scheme and Its Implications

This grand scheme, if fully executed, aims to establish complete control over the political and economic landscape of these nations. Meanwhile, China, which lacks a colonial history in Africa, has also been increasing its military presence in the Horn of Africa—a development whose motivations will become clearer in the coming years.

The American and Israeli strategic manoeuvres in the Middle East, especially after the Arab Spring, have contributed to the fragmentation of the region—Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya stand as examples. Within this scheme, Egypt now finds itself under threat and siege. Its encirclement appears strategically executed, beginning with the division of Libya, which is now governed by two rival administrations and plagued by insecurity. To the northeast lies the persistent conflict in Palestine and the Israeli front. To the south, Sudan teeters on the brink of collapse and disintegration. Internally, Egypt faces severe economic challenges, leading observers to ask: How long can Egypt hold on?

In an article titled “Is the Horn of Africa the New Arena of Global Conflict?”, Turkish journalist Kamal Ozturk wrote: “Recently, I came across a map showing only the ethnic groups, armed organizations, tribes, and militias in Somalia—where Al-Shabaab, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda control specific areas. This alone terrified me.” If we zoom out, this map would include Kenya, Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Sudan. This is precisely the scenario foreign powers with interests in the region may desire: a map teeming with exploitable militant groups, manipulable tribal affiliations, inflammable conflicts, blurred borders, and pervasive instability.

Why these regions and countries? A quick look at their resources provides the answer:

• They possess some of the world’s most fertile land (especially Sudan).
• They are rich in industrial raw materials and vast mineral deposits.
• They lie outside the water poverty belt, boasting rivers, lakes, groundwater, and heavy rainfall.
• They have massive livestock and agricultural wealth.
• They possess a youthful, abundant human resource pool.

It is within this grand context that the war in Sudan must be read, especially when we ask: Why does this war not stop?

This external project began with a total war in Sudan, aiming to dismantle it into smaller, controllable entities—so-called “banana republics.” This dismantling is already underway, orchestrated in foreign capitals. Sudan is the gateway from the Mediterranean into this strategically vital region, interconnected with its neighbors ethnically, politically, and strategically.

The final, haunting questions remain: Do the Sudanese people fully realize what is being plotted against them? Do they know they are actors in a grand scheme whose execution has already begun ?