Having already covered how outside powers could aid civilians amid the ongoing conflict in Sudan, it is time to talk about what should be done to ensure a swift end to the conflict itself from the perspective of the U.S. government.
First off, the coalition of nations under The Aligned for Advancing Lifesaving and Peace in Sudan Group, or The ALPS Group, needs to reassess the actions of some of their member states. The ALPS Group, whose primary members include the U.S. and Switzerland, has held a summit to open humanitarian corridors to relieve the pressure on Sudanese civilians. The group now needs to look inwards at their own members — namely The United Arab Emirates, a key ally of the Rapid Support Forces — supporting the principal culprits of egregious violations against the civilian population of Sudan. There has been evidence of the UAE profiting from Sudanese gold obtained through the conflict, which is then used to buy weapons and war materials. Additionally, many associates of the ALPS’ African Union members have also provided funding and other forms of collaboration for the Rapid Support Forces. These countries allow weapons and war materials to flow through their borders into Sudan, sometimes even traveling through designated humanitarian corridors. Hosting a new summit to underline the terms for strict sanctions and arms embargoes could be a start to solving these problems. It is mind-boggling how some of the most notable and direct contributors to the current violence are allowed to play mediator while being responsible for the suffering of the civilian population. They need to be held accountable before being invited back to the table.
The second focus should be the wide range of foreign powers who are funneling a broad assortment of weapons, war material and sometimes even soldiers to either side of the conflict. Countries like Türkiye and Serbia are not beyond direct reproach and must be held responsible for not upholding the international arms embargo on Sudan enacted by the United Nations Security Council in 2004, later reinforced by the international Arms Trade Treaty in 2014. Other contributors, namely the China-Russia-Iran power bloc, would require a far more elaborate solution due to their growing independence from ‘Western’ markets. So far, the Russian economy, despite stringent sanctions from the majority of the West over their ongoing war in Ukraine, has managed to somewhat skirt along. This is primarily due to military aid and enhanced economic cooperation from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. However, there are areas where this unofficial alliance lacks, for example in the semiconductor industry where China and Russia are both vying for global dominance yet lack the most recent technological advances of the West. Semiconductors are vital to a myriad of modern appliances in addition to being the key component of most modern weapon platforms. The United States could put extra stress on these pressure points as they have done with ASML, a Dutch-based company producing important parts used in the production of semiconductors that has agreed or been pressured into various sanctions against China. The United States must continue pinching these pressure points and expanding the range of these types of sanctions, which will continue to hit these major powers where it hurts and help with bringing them to some sort of a negotiating table.
Finally, the United States should focus on the corporations that fuel both sides of the war effort. The Department of State and Department of the Treasury have already stamped a number of sanctions on companies that are known benefactors of either side of the conflict. This must be expanded to various other international conglomerates that are in violation of an ongoing U.N. Security Council arms embargo. A wide range of weapons geared toward Turkish and Russian civilian markets have found their way to both sides while more advanced weaponry and ammunition which flow primarily from Russia, China and Belarus have also been found in the hands of fighters from both sides. Many of the companies that are most complicit in this arms trade are located in countries that are either direct state parties of the Arms Trade Treaty or signatories in the process of ratifying the treaty. Even more appalling is the massive amount of weaponry being diverted from civilian markets as a way to dodge embargoes. Similarly appalling, companies seem to be middlemen for various arms companies. Ashoka Manufacturing Ltd., for example, is a middleman and the ‘largest supplier of weapons to the Sudanese market,’ despite the fact that it is based in India — a founding member of the UN and non-permanent member of the Security Council eight separate times. Initiatives should also be led to enforce international sanctions on companies that are directly controlled by either of the opposing sides, most notably Al Junaid Multi Activities Co Ltd., which controls the gold production that lines the Rapid Support Forces and its foreign contributors’ pockets, and Defense Industries System, the army-owned, primary internal arms manufacturer of the Sudanese Armed Forces.
Sadly, at the current moment, it seems like there is no complete resolution in sight. General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the leader of the Sudanese Armed Forces, recently proclaimed at the U.N. General Assembly that the military was pursuing peace with all countries that have laid down their weapons or who respect the Juba Peace Agreement signed in 2020 — which the Rapid Support Forces has been accused of routinely ignoring. Both sides have also continuously dismissed resolutions set at the Jeddah talks, the most widely recognized and ongoing overtures for peace. The United States has a responsibility to cut both the international lifelines that enable both sides to continue enacting violence and cripple the economic institutions that are benefitting from a humanitarian crisis.
