Analysts: The international condemnation of the El Fasher attack is symbolic and does not change the balance of the field policy

Analysts believe that the UN Security Council’s statement regarding the Rapid Support Forces’ control of the city of El Fasher – the capital of the Sudanese state of North Darfur – and the widespread violations that accompanied it do not exceed the limits of ““Symbolic condemnation.”

The UN statement re-highlighted the humanitarian tragedy in El Fasher, but “weak implementation mechanisms make its field impact limited,” analysts say, at a time when fears are mounting that Sudan will slide into more chaos and division.

In this context, journalist and political analyst Youssef Abdel Mannan described the Security Council’s statement as a “moral condemnation” that does not carry any real pressure tools on the ground, expressing his conviction that the Council is “incapable of curbing violence or holding accountable the countries that supply the Rapid Support Forces with weapons.”

According to Abdul Mannan’s interview with the “Beyond the News” program, what is happening in Darfur puts the international community before a “moral and moral test,” but he saw that the failure to classify the Rapid Support as a “terrorist organization” reflects implicit complicity with the perpetrators.

He stressed that the UN statement “will not change much in the balance of war on the ground,” according to the spokesman.

The Security Council expressed – in a statement – grave concern about the increasing risk of committing large-scale atrocities, following increasing reports of violations in El Fasher, which the Rapid Support Forces seized a few days ago.

He urged the Security Council to refrain from external intervention aimed at “fueling conflict and instability in Sudan,” and affirmed its refusal to establish a parallel ruling authority in areas under the control of the Rapid Support Forces.

“No change on the ground”

As for the writer and political analyst, Othman Al-Nujaimi, he considered that the UN condemnation “does not change anything on the field,” stressing that the Rapid Support Forces “welcome any international investigation committee” regarding violations in El Fasher.

Al-Nujaimi believes that the UN statement “does not stop the progress of Rapid Support, which will continue its operations until Port Sudan in northeastern Sudan,” considering that any political solution requires the commitment of the “Islamic Movement and the Army” to stop the fighting first, he said.

For his part, Cameron Hudson, former official for Africa affairs at the US National Security Council, saw what was issued by the Security Council as “a late but important first step.”

Hudson pointed out that the Security Council “was absent throughout the war,” and that the division of the major powers and the paralysis of the international system “weakened its ability to make decisive decisions.”

According to the spokesman, “major or influential countries within the Security Council hesitate to criticize countries that are believed to be fueling the conflict in Sudan.”

He stressed that the United Nations lacks actual tools of influence, stressing that any serious diplomatic path “needs the consensus of effective regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Egypt.”

Accordingly, “the solution will only come through pressure from these countries on their allies inside Sudan to stop financing the war.”

About 20,000 people have been killed, in addition to the displacement of more than 15 million, as a result of the ongoing war between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces since April 2023, according to international and local reports.