Sudan’s civil war, now well into its second year, has drawn ominous parallels to the tragic conflicts in Libya and Syria. The situation in Sudan has deteriorated into a protracted and bloody struggle, with over 40,000 lives lost and more than 10 million people displaced. As in the Middle Eastern civil wars that came before it, the conflict in Sudan began with a popular uprising, morphed into a multifaceted war, and now threatens to spill over into neighboring countries. With recent US-sponsored peace talks in Geneva failing to bring key parties to the table, there is little hope for a swift resolution. Instead, Sudan seems destined to follow the same grim path as Syria and Libya, where external intervention, regional rivalries, and internal divisions have prolonged suffering and instability.
The roots of Sudan’s civil war can be traced back to 2019 when Sudanese protesters successfully ousted longtime President Omar al-Bashir. This popular movement was reminiscent of the Arab Spring uprisings that erupted across the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, leading to the downfall of autocrats like Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. However, as in those countries, the initial hope for democratic change quickly gave way to violence and chaos.
In Libya and Syria, the fall of dictators was immediately followed by conflict. In Libya, supporters and opponents of Qaddafi quickly descended into civil war. In Syria, after a few months of government crackdowns on peaceful protests, the opposition took up arms, leading to a brutal and prolonged conflict. Sudan, in contrast, experienced a brief period of cooperation between the military, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and civilian leaders. However, this fragile alliance unraveled in 2023 when the RSF and the army turned on each other, sidelining civilian leaders and plunging the country into full-scale war.
This progression from popular protest to armed conflict, with initial protesters largely sidelined by other actors, is a common thread running through the experiences of Syria, Libya, and Sudan. In Syria, many of the original protesters opposed taking up arms against Assad but were eventually overruled by those advocating for violence. Over time, Islamist militias, Daesh, and Kurdish forces came to dominate the opposition, overshadowing the 2011 protests. In Libya, the first civil war was fought by those aligned with the anti-Qaddafi protesters, but the second civil war, which erupted three years later, was led by Khalifa Haftar, who had little to do with the original revolution. Similarly, in Sudan, the RSF and the army, rather than the civilian leaders who had represented the protest movement, are now the main combatants.
The international community’s response to Sudan’s war has been strikingly similar to its reactions to the conflicts in Libya and Syria. Western governments, particularly the United States, have remained largely distant, sponsoring peace talks but failing to exert significant influence on the ground. This lack of engagement has allowed non-Western powers, particularly Middle Eastern regional actors, to play a significant role in the conflict.
In Libya, NATO intervened in 2011 to protect anti-Qaddafi protesters, leading to Qaddafi’s downfall. In Syria, the US sent forces to defeat Daesh in eastern Syria, but largely stayed out of the main conflict between Assad and the rebels. In Sudan, the US has sponsored peace talks, but these have been unsuccessful, partly due to the limited leverage Western powers have over the warring factions.
The involvement of non-Western powers in Sudan’s war mirrors the situation in Libya and Syria. A recent report from Amnesty International revealed that weapons and equipment from China, Russia, and Turkiye have been sent into Sudan, reflecting the influence of these countries in the conflict. In Libya, Turkiye and Qatar backed the Tripoli government, while Russia and Egypt supported Haftar. Syria’s war was even more complex, with Russia, Iran, Qatar, and Turkiye all lending support to various sides.
The involvement of these external powers has made it more difficult for the conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Sudan to be resolved. The more states that intervene in a civil conflict, the more difficult it becomes to satisfy the various agendas at play. In Libya, Turkiye’s backing of the Tripoli government and Russia’s support for Haftar helped to prolong the war. In Syria, Russia’s intervention on behalf of Assad and Iran’s support for various militias have kept the conflict simmering for more than a decade. Sudan now appears to be heading down the same path, with external actors prolonging the war and making a resolution increasingly elusive.
One of the most concerning aspects of Sudan’s war is the potential for it to spill over into neighboring countries, a scenario that played out in both Libya and Syria. The Syrian conflict contributed to instability in Jordan and Lebanon, violence in Turkiye from Kurdish militants, and the rise of religious extremism in northern Iraq. Libya’s war fueled violence across the Sahel and contributed to the migrant crisis that affected Europe in 2015 and beyond.
Sudan shares borders with seven countries: Mali, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Libya, and Egypt. Three of these-Mali, Libya, and the Central African Republic-are already in a state of war, while most of the others have experienced coups, conflicts, and various forms of instability in recent years. With 2.3 million people having fled from Sudan to neighboring countries, the longer the war goes on, the greater the risk of spillover into an already fragile region.
The displacement of millions of Sudanese is putting pressure on neighboring countries, many of which are ill-equipped to handle large influxes of refugees. The possibility of the conflict spreading into these countries is real, and the consequences could be dire. Sudan’s war, like the conflicts in Libya and Syria, has the potential to destabilize an entire region, with far-reaching implications for global security.
The international community has an opportunity to learn from the tragic outcomes in Libya and Syria and take action to prevent Sudan from following the same path. However, this will require a level of engagement and commitment that has so far been lacking. The experiences of Libya and Syria demonstrate the dangers of limited Western involvement and the risks of allowing regional powers to dominate the conflict.
If Sudan’s war is allowed to continue unchecked, the consequences will be devastating not only for the Sudanese people but also for the entire region. The international community must recognize the lessons of history and act to prevent another protracted and destabilizing conflict. Time is running out, and the window for a meaningful intervention is closing. The Sudanese people are already paying the price for the world’s inaction, and there is a real risk that the populations in Sudan’s neighborhood could soon follow.
The echoes of Libya and Syria are loud and clear. Sudan’s war is a grim reminder that history, while it may not repeat itself exactly, often rhymes in the most tragic of ways.
