Somoud’s moral test: Why civilian leaders must name the RSF as terrorists
By Gaffar Mohammud Saeneen
Sudan’s war, which erupted on April 15, 2023, is not only a military confrontation; it is also a moral test that requires the political courage of moral clarity. At the centre of this test stands the former Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), now transitioned into Somoud. This emerging civilian coalition claims to speak for the Sudanese people while facing growing challenges in maintaining public consensus.
For years, the FFC (now Somoud) has sought to position itself as the guardian of Sudan’s democratic transition. Yet, since the outbreak of fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the coalition’s positions have often been characterized by perceived hesitation and a struggle to adapt to a rapidly shifting political reality.
At the beginning of the war, the conflict was frequently framed through the slogan of “a fight between two generals.” While this provided a sense of balance, critics argue it effectively blurred responsibility and avoided necessary moral judgments.
At the same time, the RSF promoted its own narrative, presenting itself as a force defending democracy. This assertion sits uneasily beside the growing body of reports documenting atrocities, particularly in Darfur. When this narrative failed to gain traction with the public, Somoud adjusted its rhetoric to blame elements linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, creating an impression of reactive rather than strategic positioning.
This situation raises significant questions regarding whether Somoud is effectively leading public sentiment or merely responding to it. If the coalition is to authentically represent the civilian majority, it must address the challenges it faces in mobilizing a unified front against the conflict. Furthermore, the disconnect between political discourse and the harrowing daily realities of Sudanese citizens necessitates a clearer demonstration of the coalition’s representative mandate at this pivotal moment.
These questions are inseparable from the scale of the violence itself. Reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International describe killings, sexual violence, forced displacement, and systematic looting on a massive scale. As most documented allegations are directed at the RSF, particularly in Darfur, many Sudanese are now asking why Somoud has not formally demanded that the RSF be designated a terrorist organization.
There is no legal barrier preventing Somoud from making such a demand. Any political coalition has the right to lobby the United Nations or influential governments for such a designation. The fact that this has not happened consistently suggests that the hesitation is rooted in political considerations rather than technical constraints.
Designating the RSF as a terrorist organization would end the language of neutrality and force civilian leaders to take a definitive stance. It could also reopen difficult questions about the transitional period following the Sudanese Revolution, when political alliances were formed that now appear increasingly hard to defend.
However, caution carries a high price. In moments of national catastrophe, hesitation can be interpreted as avoidance, and carefully balanced language risks eroding the trust of the citizens the coalition seeks to represent. While the conflict is undeniably complex, the continued accumulation of reports regarding atrocities makes silence a significant political choice.
The primary question is not whether Somoud has the capacity to demand a terrorist designation for the RSF, but whether it is prepared to accept the political consequences of doing so. Until this is addressed with clarity, the coalition’s claim to a fully representative and independent mandate will remain a subject of debate. In a war defined by violence and shifting narratives, clarity is a duty.
Gaffar M. Saeneen is an independent Sudanese activist from Darfur and a Social Education Assistant in France. He can be reached at gsaeneen@gmail.com.