Why calling Sudan’s war a conflict between “two equal parties” is a moral and factual distortion.
Amb Osman Akasha
A dangerous myth persists in international discourse that Sudan’s devastating conflict is a war between “two equal parties.”
This framing, repeated in some international and regional circles and a few media reports, is not only false but deeply unjust. It blurs the moral and legal line between a national army defending its state and people and a militia waging terror against them. To understand Sudan’s war, one must look beyond slogans and into logic, evidence and the lived experience of millions of Sudanese civilians.
1. Legitimacy Cannot Be Shared Between a State and a Militia: The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) is a constitutionally established institution, recognized by international law and entrusted with safeguarding Sudan’s sovereignty and unity. In contrast, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia is not a legitimate national force but the rebranded face of the Janjaweed militia—a group of supremacists responsible for genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities in Darfur since 2003.
According to the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2005), the Janjaweed were responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against non-Arab communities. These militias were reorganized and renamed as the RSF under Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (“Hemedti”), keeping their same command structures and violent practices and also their genocidal nature.
For years, the international community condemned the Janjaweed for mass killings, rape, village burnings and forced displacement. Yet today, many of those same actors risk moral amnesia by equating this genocidal militia with Sudan’s national army. In April 2023, the RSF exploited Sudan’s political instability, turning its guns on the state and attacking institutions, airports and residential areas in a bid to seize power through a coup d’état. To call both “equal sides” is like comparing a nation’s police with an armed gang—one defends the rule of law, the other destroys it. Legitimacy is not opinion; it is law.
2. Civilians Know Who Protects Them: The truest test of legitimacy lies in the movement of civilians. Across Sudan, millions have fled RSF militia-controlled areas, seeking safety in army-held zones or neighbouring countries. According to the UNHCR, over nine million people have been displaced since the war began, mostly fleeing violence, looting and sexual abuse by RSF militias in Darfur, Al-Gezira, Sinnar and Khartoum. If both sides were equal, the population would be divided—but Sudanese civilians are clearly voting with their feet, escaping the RSF militias and seeking refuge under the army’s protection.
3. The RSF’s Documented Crimes:
The RSF’s record is one of systematic brutality, not political legitimacy. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has documented mass killings, torture and sexual violence by RSF militia fighters in Darfur, warning that these crimes amount to crimes against humanity. Human Rights Watch recorded ethnic massacres in El Geneina, where RSF forces and allied militias slaughtered non-Arab civilians and burned entire neighbourhoods to the ground.
Amnesty International confirmed widespread rape, abductions and forced disappearances used as weapons of war by the RSF militia, while the UN Panel of Experts on Sudan traced foreign arms supplies and illicit financial flows sustaining its operations and violating international sanctions. These are not the actions of a movement seeking justice or reform but the crimes of a mercenary militia driven by greed, tribal domination and foreign sponsorship.
4. National Army’s Role Is Defensive, Not Aggressive: The war did not begin with the Sudanese Armed Forces. It began when the RSF militia launched a coordinated assault on state institutions, looting public assets, seizing airports and occupying homes in Khartoum. According to the UN Secretary-General’s report to the Security Council (S/2023/700), the RSF militia initiated the fighting on 15 April 2023, attacking both military installations and civilian neighbourhoods. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, every sovereign state has the right and the duty to defend itself from internal rebellion. Sudan is no exception. To condemn the national army for defending the nation is to deny Sudan’s right to exist as a state.
5. The Danger of False Neutrality: In the name of “balance,” some international voices continue to speak of “both sides.” But false neutrality is not fairness, it is complicity. Equating the Sudanese Armed Forces with a militia accused of genocide and crimes against humanity is morally untenable and strategically reckless. This misguided parity rewards the perpetrators and punishes the victims. Peace cannot be built on deception, it requires acknowledging who defends the nation and who destroys it.
Truth before Peace: Sudan’s war is not a clash between equals. It is a nation under attack by a rebranded genocidal militia. The Sudanese Armed Forces represent the continuity of the state, the flag and the people’s collective will to defend their homeland. The RSF militia represents anarchy, foreign interference and mass suffering. To call them “equal parties” is not diplomacy, it is denial. Truth must come before peace, because peace without truth sanctifies injustice. Sudan is not at war with itself. It is fighting for its survival.
—The writer is Charge’ d’Affaires a.i, Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan in Nairobi
