Sudanese Government Sets a Trap for the RSF

By Rukabi Hassan Yaqoub

Last Friday, the President of Sudan’s Transitional Sovereignty Council, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, agreed to a one-week humanitarian truce in the city of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur State, according to a press release issued by the Transitional Sovereignty Council.

According to the statement, al-Burhan received a phone call from UN Secretary-General António Guterres, during which Guterres welcomed the appointment of Dr. Kamal Idris as Prime Minister for the transitional period. Guterres also urged al-Burhan to announce a one-week humanitarian ceasefire in El Fasher to support the United Nations’ efforts to facilitate aid delivery to the thousands of civilians who have been besieged by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) for over a year.

Al-Burhan’s approval of the temporary humanitarian truce came swiftly but with conditions. He emphasized the necessity of implementing UN Security Council resolutions related to the conflict, particularly Resolution 2736, which explicitly calls on the RSF to lift its siege on El Fasher, halt its shelling of displacement camps, and cease targeting civilians and critical infrastructure.

The resolution also urges all parties to immediately cease hostilities, de-escalate tensions in and around El Fasher, and withdraw all forces.

However, the RSF has failed to comply with the resolution and continues its siege on the city, along with its bombardment of the area and vital infrastructure.

The RSF is determined to capture El Fasher—the only city in the Darfur region still under the control of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and their allied forces. The RSF has been unable to take the city despite repeated attempts.

The Sudanese government’s agreement to the temporary truce is considered a positive development that strengthens its position and adds significant weight to its moral and political stance.

The dire humanitarian situation in the city, which has persisted for over a year, has reached its peak. This worsening crisis has placed the Sudanese government—recognized as the legitimate authority—under ethical and legal obligation to act. The truce provides an opportunity for the government to fulfill its responsibilities toward its citizens by ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid and preventing the situation from spiraling into total collapse.

This response from the Sudanese government is understandable and expected. However, since the success of the truce depends on cooperation from both sides with the United Nations, the RSF’s stance remains unclear. So far, the group has issued no statement—neither confirming nor rejecting the ceasefire.

This ambiguity raises many questions and concerns, possibly indicating the RSF’s intent to reject the truce and thereby sabotage international efforts.

One can speculate on the RSF’s likely position based on various factors, all of which suggest it is more inclined to reject the ceasefire or, at best, accept it conditionally—mirroring the Sudanese government’s conditional approval based on implementing relevant Security Council resolutions.

Several reasons support the prediction that the RSF will reject or undermine the truce:

1. Strategic Siege: The RSF intentionally imposed the siege on El Fasher to create a humanitarian catastrophe severe enough to justify UN military intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter—rather than mere aid convoys. This aligns with its political agenda to internationalize the conflict and pave the way for announcing a parallel government in Darfur, potentially leading to the region’s secession under RSF control and its political ally, the “Samood” group led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok.

2. Military Weakening of Rivals: The RSF aims to crush the hard-power base of its adversaries in North Darfur by besieging El Fasher, a stronghold of its historical opponents. At the same time, it seeks to drain the Sudanese army and allied forces defending the city, who have been resisting continuous RSF assaults.

3. Territorial Control: Capturing El Fasher would grant the RSF control over the entire Darfur region. This would compensate for its losses in Khartoum, Al-Jazira, and parts of White Nile and Sennar states—areas from which the Sudanese army had previously expelled them.

4. Tactical Concerns: The RSF believes the ceasefire would allow the Sudanese army and its allies to regroup and reorganize, enabling them to launch significant counterattacks, break the siege, and regain military initiative.

For these reasons, the RSF is expected to resist any attempt by the Sudanese government to exploit the truce to bolster its offensive capacity and complete its campaign to expel the RSF from El Fasher and its surroundings—and eventually reclaim other Darfur cities under RSF control.

The UN’s call for a humanitarian truce, coupled with the Sudanese government’s acceptance, has placed the RSF in a difficult position, forcing it to choose between two unfavorable options:

If it agrees to the truce, it could be perceived as strengthening the Sudanese army’s position.

If it rejects the truce, it risks international condemnation and further isolation, especially as it would be seen as obstructing global efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to civilians it is actively besieging—at a time when it desperately needs international support.