 You're watching News Clicks, Mapping Fault Lines, and today we're going to be talking about the fighting in Sudan between the army and the paramilitary rapid support forces. Now we know that the army has been in charge of Sudan for many, many years, including the dictatorship of Omar al-Bashir, who was overthrown in 2019. After he was overthrown, the military junta, including the army and the RSF, was in power for most of the time. It even overthrew a civilian government in between. These forces have repressed protesters, people demanding democracy for years. The RSF, for instance, has also been involved in violence in the Darfur regions, leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Today, these two forces are fighting each other for greater say, for greater control. Why are they fighting? What is the regional impact? All this in this episode of Mapping Fault Lines. Prabir, so fighting, of course, causing a lot of big humanitarian crises in Sudan. We know that tens of thousands of people have left over 500 deaths being reported. And we also know that the army and the RSF, two very strong forces, although one is a paramilitary force, really battling it out in all these places. At least, for instance, we know that in some of these areas, it's not just the army and the RSF. It's also violence breaking out between armed militia groups as well, attacks on civilians, for instance. All this together, placing Sudan and the Sudanese people in a very, very difficult spot. To sort of understand the larger fault lines at play here, why is it that two armed forces are sort of duking it out right now, especially considering that they were on the same side seemingly for so many years, they were instrumental in overthrowing Omar al-Bashir, or technically they did it. Secondly, they did this coup in 2021, where they overthrew what was in fact their own government. So why is suddenly this breakout conflict? Simply put, it is of course how two military groups exist in one country, because both are armed forces, both represent the state and representation of the state through military. If it is not unified, then of course the chances of who is going to be the top dog, top boss will remain. And I think a part of it is very much this, because these two forces were, as long as it was a popular opposition, they're united. As long as it was, as you said, replacing Bashir, taking over, they were united. As long earlier, it was fighting South Sudanese or in Darfur, the whatever way you call it, the people over there, the farming communities, ethnicities which are slightly different, whatever way you call it, they were on one side. But when it comes now that they are going to run Sudan, are they going to hand over power to a civilian government? Are they going to rule it as to Dayarki? As you know, Dayarki is never stable. So that question was there and also the international pressure recently that somehow we should get an agreement, move forward, get international support and therefore, the argument that Burhan has really given, therefore, it's logical that the, what would be called paramilitary forces should be merged into Darfur, except that there seems to be really equal in size and equal in strength, at least similar in size and strength. Therefore, it means that the leader of RSF, in this case, Habiti, then loses out to Burhan or at least that's what appears to be the thought and therefore, right now, it's a question of who will control Sudan. It's also interesting once South Sudan was separated and I think the United States and other European countries were interested in that because South Sudan was oil-rich, but they really have sort of left Sudan to itself and they just want a quick solution without looking into what's really happening in Sudan and also not willing to address the larger issue, which is what the popular alliance had raised, that you cannot run a country with military dictatorship and therefore, it has to be a civilian government. And I think all these questions are coming into play over here, which is manifesting itself into this armed conflict in two military powers, but the larger crisis of what you have said, note it, the larger crisis of Sudan as a state still remains and I think that is the main crisis which needs to be solved, not just how to reconcile two opposing military forces. In fact, I think the civilian forces have said time and again that this is not a solution. Also important note, like you said, that both the army and the RSF actually control substantial chunks of the economy. They have their own corporations, some of which have ties with foreign countries. They're in fact very rich institutions. So this is also in that sense, I think a conflict to sort of a conflict of to protect their interests and protect their wealth as well. Yes, the economic interest of the armed forces, you know, this has been a problem with any institution where army becomes really important in the state. Pakistan, for instance, very similar. Exactly what I was thinking. Pakistan is another case where you have really Pakistan, the army, armed forces involved in a number of what would be otherwise civilian institutions of the state. So this is also similar, except for the fact that the state is extremely weak now. And having gone through an earlier civil war, we had therefore as really the Janjabid militias being very active there in atrocities. In fact, a lot of the Janjabid militia is the RSF. So therefore that history is also there. And we know what the kind of atrocities they did. But over a period of time with a weak state and the fact that Bashir gave them a free hand that they have also enriched themselves. And having enriched themselves, as you said, they have also formed institutional basis for by which they can generate money. But you know, at the end of it, it's a gun. And if the gun isn't there, all this will really fold up and they know that. So therefore, what you see here is that how does a state with two nearly equal military forces now reconcile itself, either both leaders go or one leader wins. Or both are willing to accept civilian leadership, a third leadership. And an obvious solution would be if they're willing to accept a third leadership. But that doesn't seem to be on the table at the moment. This is the popular reliance, demand that should be civil administration and so on. So it's really a staring at a very uncertain situation. And there are no easy answers unless the region as a whole is willing to look at it. And I think the interesting part in all of this, you see in all past conflicts, particularly in North Africa, we had foreign players. And quite often what they were playing was the game. And these countries were the receiving end. Now, after South Sudan and Sudan being separated, what we see that the Western powers have lost interest. They're not really too bothered about it. It's also true that geopolitically, this whole of North African region is getting into a zone of instability. We look at the larger picture. The question is, can the region come together to try and solve the problem of Sudan? Can we have a situation where countries in the region, including the African Union, steps into some of this and act as really honest broker to see how the state of Sudan can be put back again? And can we get a transition to civilian administration through that? Because I don't see military powers becoming stagnant. So in that case, what would be interesting is to look at, for instance, the countries which are in the region, which have some... Praveen, I think before going into it, I also want to take this aspect, which is the key point you mentioned is the honest broker. Because technically, the EU was involved in the negotiation process. Egypt, in fact, ran its own parallel track of negotiations. And in all these negotiations, the key point was Burhan and Hemathee were at the center of it. Nobody ever considered a possibility where these key players are at least being pressured to give up some of their power. It was always understood that even if a civilian would be a head, a figurehead, so to speak, the army and the RSA would be key players there. So I think the other question also is that what really are the interests of some of these countries in this picture that prevent them from being the honest brokers? Say Egypt, for instance, or the UAE? Well, Egypt has a very direct interest in Sudan. You have the dam, the Orn Nile, which is being built by Ethiopia. And if that happens, then if the water is impounded to an extent, that Egypt really faces a crisis, then they are willing to, if they have said earlier, even willing to bomb the dam. There, Sudan becomes a very important player, because in the littoral state, these are the three main states of the banks of the river Nile. So all three states have a stake in what happens to Nile. And therefore, unilaterally, Ethiopia cannot impound waters to the extent others are not going to have any say. So this is something, for instance, which happens in between India and Pakistan on the Indus River, the Indus River system. So this is one major reason why Egypt has a direct stake in Sudan. It's not like other countries. United Arab Emirates, if you remember, they actually took soldiers from Sudan in order to attack Yemen. So they are, in that sense, they have been, United Arab Emirates have been quite expansive in their foreign policy, and they have punched well above their weight, partly because they have that enormous amount of oil built in the country. They act as some kind of Switzerland of this area, if you will. Only they're not neutral. Yes, they are much more active than Switzerland could be. You know, once upon a time, Switzerland used to send soldiers to other countries to fight as mercenaries. So they have that history as well. But you're right, United Arab Emirates has an expansive foreign policy. They are much more involved with different politics of the region. But nevertheless, the fact that they have a stake in Sudan, will that help or will it harm? We don't know. As I said, Egypt has a stake, United Arab Emirates have a stake, African Union has a stake, because whatever instability Sudan has, it's likely to spread to other... It is already spreading, South Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, I'm not Ethiopia, all these countries receiving refugees in large numbers. And refugees are only one part of it. You will have also what's consequence of breaking up states, which you have seen, is all kinds of forces will raise their head, including really extremely right-wing Islamist forces, which have come up, come about in Somalia, for example, or in Central Africa, Libya for that matter. Of course, Libya was engineered by the West. So that is not a consequence of breaking up a state. It was, in fact, what they did that broke up the state. At the back, the Islamic Islamist forces over there, as we know. So given that, I think the question is, can the region pull itself together? And the real weakness over there is African Union, that African Union, after the dismantling of Libya, African Union has lost its major supporter, and which was really Gandafi, because he had the money and the political goodwill in the region, which no longer exists. So given that, we'll have to see how it goes. But the problem for me, or problem for all of us, is that you are really looking at a zone of instability, which is now spreading from Libya, from Sudan into Somalia. So this is an entire, this part of Africa, we are seeing a zone of instability develop as a consequence of what imperialist powers have done in the past. The problem that we have is, unfortunately, we are much nearer to it. And the major part of Africa and Asia are going to be affected by this. And how do you solve this problems is a challenge that faces all of us. No easy answers to this question. Thank you for being like I said, very difficult times for the people of Sudan, especially because there seems to be no clear possibility of even a discussion until at least maybe one side feels that it is enough strategic advantage to sort of, you know, agree to a discussion. So we'll of course be covering this in future episodes. But thank you so much. And that is all we have time for today. This conflict is definitely a developing one, even if the fighting stops. Many of the issues raised by this fighting are not going to conclude. We'll be regularly tracking issues in Sudan, in the rest of Africa, and across the world in mapping fault lines. Until then, keep watching Newsclick.