By Opiyo Dancan
The ongoing conflict in Sudan has had a catastrophic impact on the country’s health system, education, and environment.
The healthcare system in the country is currently suffering from an acute shortage of medics, funding, and medical supplies due to repeated attacks, looting, and occupation of medical facilities by the warring parties.
According to a recent report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “more than 1,200 children under five years died in White Nile State alone between mid-May and mid-September 2023 due to a measles outbreak combined with high levels of malnutrition.”
The collapse of Sudan’s health care system, among other critical services, threatens not only the lives of many Sudanese people in the present but also threatens future generations. Having more than 70 percent of health facilities inoperable or closed is unacceptable.
The destruction of water services and displacement of civilians have also placed an additional strain on healthcare resources, as well as water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services.
Thus, the country is grappling with frequent severe cholera outbreaks. For instance, in May this year alone, the number of suspected cases surpassed 11,000, including 292 associated deaths.
With high rates of malnutrition, a debilitated health system, and low levels of immunization, disease outbreaks will continue to have catastrophic impacts, particularly for children. An outbreak of measles has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 children across Sudan.
The World Health Organization (WHO) works intensively with partners across the country and region to coordinate the health response, reinforce disease surveillance, and distribute lifesaving medical supplies to the needy despite rampant insecurity. However, this is not enough to alleviate the people’s suffering. The solution lies in permanent resolutions of the conflict so that people can return to their everyday lives and fend for themselves.
Ecological impacts
On the environment, the ongoing Sudanese conflict has posed far-reaching negative impacts on biodiversity and ecological stability. This has had devastating repercussions for the Sudanese people, including women and children. The conflict has heightened climate vulnerability, deforestation, and soil degradation.
For example, Displacement and environmental degradation have been some of the most significant challenges as the concentration of internally displaced people in specific areas intensifies local demand for limited resources. This creates a vicious cycle of conflict-driven migration and environmental degradation, which can only be broken through holistic interventions.
The ongoing conflict in Sudan started as a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). It has led to extreme levels of displacement, both internally and across Sudan’s borders.
The vast majority of those displaced live in an unhealthy environment despite the right of every human being to live in a clean and healthy environment guaranteed by the United Nations.
The total number of those internally displaced is estimated to be more than 10 million, the largest internal displacement crisis in the world, with over 2 million refugees having fled to neighboring countries like South Sudan, Chad, Libya, and Ethiopia.
The environmental consequences of mass displacement of people are dire. The refugees often strain the resources of host nations, leading to social and economic challenges.
Resolving the Sudan conflict peacefully is urgent if such humanitarian crises and environmental consequences are to be avoided. The most desirable solution is to adopt a negotiated settlement between the warring parties.
The global community should demand and enforce a ceasefire by any means necessary, including military intervention as provided for under the United Nations.
The Sudanese conflict started in April 2023, as fighting between rival armed factions broke out in Khartoum, raising fears of a return to full-scale civil war. The conflict is primarily a power struggle between the leaders of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and a powerful paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The two groups, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, respectively, are battling one another for control of the state and its resources. These two warmongers and their associates should be sanctioned heavily. This will force them to negotiate in good faith.
In May 2023, peace negotiations collapsed after the SAF abandoned the talks brokered by the United States and Saudi Arabia. This followed Burhan’s declaration that the UN envoy to Sudan, Volker Perthes, would no longer be tolerated in the country, a stark sign of the belligerents’ refusal to cooperate with international efforts for peace.
It has been shown that sanctions can work, but all players, especially foreign countries fueling the war, should stop them. In June, pressure from the Joe Biden administration forced the combatants to resume U.S. – and Saudi-led negotiations in late October 2023. Given the extreme hostility of the warring forces, the United Nations should consider intervening militarily.
In the meantime, the following diplomatic avenues can be explored. These include:
Comprehensive Peace Negotiations: A sustained and inclusive dialogue involving all relevant stakeholders, including the Sudanese government, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and civil society organizations, is crucial for achieving a lasting peace. Such negotiations should address the root causes of the conflict, including power-sharing arrangements, economic reforms, and transitional justice.
Regional Cooperation: The conflict in Sudan has had significant regional implications, affecting neighboring countries such as South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Chad. Regional cooperation is essential for addressing the root causes of the conflict and preventing its spread. The African Union should do more to facilitate regional dialogue among the conflicting parties.
International Diplomatic Pressure: Finally, the international community should exert significant diplomatic pressure on the warring parties to cease hostilities and engage in meaningful negotiations. This could involve imposing targeted sanctions, arms embargoes, and diplomatic isolation. The UN Security Council should also play a more active role in mediating the conflict and authorizing peacekeeping forces if necessary.
The writer is Third Year International Relations student at the Catholic University of East Africa
