The RSF parallel government in Sudan is ‘stillborn’ and lacks international or popular support

The political strategy of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has evolved gradually throughout the two years of civil war in Sudan. After the RSF failed to assassinate the head of the Sudanese Army, Abdel-Fattah Al-Burhan, the paramilitary group attempted, unsuccessfully, to control the capital Khartoum and other strategic locations. However, even in those early stages, observers were clear that the RSF and its international backers aimed to isolate Sudan’s western region of Darfur and declare a separate state.

After the signing of the Jeddah Declaration in May 2023, commentators said that the RSF had signed a peace agreement with no intention of sticking to its agreed principles; it signed in the full expectation that its forces would overwhelm the Sudanese Army, and that an RSF victory in Darfur would be the staging post for victory across the whole country. The army’s continued attempts to save Darfur was aided by the entry of the Joint Forces led by Mini Minawi, the Sudan Liberation Movement. Ultimately, the force was a game changer in preventing the isolation of Darfur and its secession.

The RSF’s announcement in February that it was going to launch a parallel government in Sudan has already been rejected by its former allies as well as the Sudan government, neighbouring countries and members of the international community. Sudan’s former Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok was forced to dissolve his Tagadam coalition on 10 February over the plans to divide the country and declare a rival government. The subsequent controversial announcement by the RSF in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, not only caused a diplomatic row between the Sudanese government and Kenya, but has also led to a series of rejections from the UN, China and Egypt.

The Kenyan government was unapologetic.

It explained that hosting the conference was a means of supporting peace by providing a non-partisan platform for affected parties, and pointing to Kenya’s long history of conflict resolution in Africa. Cabinet Secretary for Foreign Affairs Musalia Mudavadi said that Nairobi was, in fact, playing a peace-making role. “The tabling of a roadmap and proposed leadership by the RSF and Sudanese civilian groups in Nairobi is consistent with Kenya’s role in peace negotiations,” said Mudavadi.

Sudan’s Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Hussein Al-Amin Al-Fadil, however, told a press conference last Monday that, “Sudan will take escalatory measures against Kenya, starting with withdrawing the ambassador, followed by a ban on the entry of Kenyan products into the country, most notably tea.”

READ: Egyptians kidnapped by RSF in Sudan released, Cairo says

The thinking behind the “parallel government” is to give the paramilitary RSF more options. A separate administration would allow it to control the financial system, and make it possible for the militia to procure arms “legitimately” and even deploy air defence systems. Despite not announcing its headquarters or naming its leaders, the RSF “government” purports to be fighting for national unity. It ignores the irony of claiming this while splitting Sudan in two and undermining its sovereignty.

Speaking in Nairobi, Ammar Amoun, the head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-North) delegation, said that the fledgling government would be called a “New Sudan”. The new constitution would formally establish a federal, secular state split into eight regions. It provides for a bill of rights, giving the regions the right to self-determination if the separation of religion and state are not met. Included in the proposal is the creation of a single national army with the signatories as the “nucleus”, and a transitional period followed by an election.

“[The Rapid Support Forces] are trying to achieve a victory politically that they cannot achieve militarily,” commented Cameron Hudson, a senior fellow in the Africa Programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Despite the RSF’s ambitions, even a political “victory” for them is unlikely. Reuters pointed out. “Such a government, which has already drawn concerns from the UN, is not expected to receive widespread recognition.”

A lack of recognition from the international community would alienate a new government, making it unlikely to succeed.

The UN Secretary General António Guterres warned that the formation of the government could “increase the fragmentation of the country and risk making [the war] even worse.”

Moreover, commentators say that the RSF’s government seems unlikely to benefit civilians in the region. Given the allegations of serious human rights abuses levelled against the militia — including genocide — by the international community, it is unlikely that it will serve as a force for good.

A report in the Guardian, for example, gives details of claims that more than 500 people may have been tortured or starved to death and then buried in a secret mass grave at a base used by the Rapid Support Forces north of Khartoum. Access was possible shortly after it was retaken by the Sudanese Army, which found a previously unknown detention centre, with manacles hanging from doors, apparent punishment chambers and bloodstains on the floor. In accounts from people held at the centre, they describe being tortured repeatedly by their captors.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), meanwhile, faces a “genocide” case filed by the Sudanese government in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its interference in the Sudan war. An anonymous official speaking on behalf of the UAE government said that the allegations “lack any legal or factual basis”.

It remains to be seen whether there will be any public support from the UAE for the declaration of the government announced by the RSF, given that Abu Dhabi is alleged to have backed the militia with arms since the start of the civil war in mid-April 2023.

OPINION: The UAE should stop its violations of the UN arms embargo in Darfur

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.