Targeting the State: When Civilian Infrastructure Becomes a Battlefield

Dr. Abd al-Nasir Salim Hamid

When hospitals become targets, camps become battlegrounds, and children silently fall as victims, we know we are not witnessing a war — but a total collapse of meaning. Sudan is being erased, facility by facility. No objection. No accountability. Just a resounding international silence. Since the outbreak of war between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in April 2023, the targeting of civilians and infrastructure has ceased to be an exception — it has become a central tactic in managing the conflict. Hospitals, airports, displacement camps, and electricity and water networks have become fixed targets on the bombing map — a scene reflecting the breakdown of all restraint, where violence becomes policy.

In May 2025, the RSF launched a drone attack on Port Sudan, the last relatively stable stronghold in the country. Fuel depots and the civilian airport were targeted, halting air traffic and igniting fires that disrupted vital supplies. This was not a defensive maneuver nor part of an active battlefront — it was a clear strategic message: the RSF’s long arm can reach whatever remains of the national infrastructure, even far from combat zones. Port Sudan is not merely a coastal city; it is a symbol of administrative endurance and a lifeline for economic survival. Targeting it is not arbitrary — it is a decision to tighten the chokehold.

Just weeks later, a horrifying massacre occurred in Zamzam displacement camp in North Darfur. More than 400 people — mostly women and children — were killed in a series of attacks: reconnaissance, airstrikes, ground assault. Facilities were destroyed, food stores were burned, and tents flattened. There was no resistance. No combatants. Only displaced civilians fleeing a previous war. Eyewitnesses reported gunfire at those fleeing and mothers denied a chance to escape. This was not a battle — it was a field execution of a population left without protection.

In El Fasher, in January of the same year, a drone targeted the Saudi Maternity Hospital, killing 70 people — including women in labor, doctors, and nurses. There was no military activity near the hospital. Not even a pretext. Although the attack was documented in sound and image, no investigation followed. No sanctions. Not even an indication of accountability. Only statements of “concern.” And more victims. The silence is no longer surprising — it has become part of the scene.

The RSF denies responsibility, accusing other parties of using civilian infrastructure for military purposes. However, the attacks often occur far from battle lines and target areas with no clashes. This narrative, repeated with nearly every bombing, collapses under the weight of repetition and field verification, lacking any real support in investigative or legal arenas. How can clearly marked, well-known hospitals be bombed without even prompting debate at the Security Council?

Under international humanitarian law — specifically the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols — targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, camps, and utilities constitutes a clear war crime. Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that “civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick… may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected.” The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in Article 8, prohibits “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or against civilian objects,” considering such acts among the most serious crimes subject to prosecution. Given the nature and repetition of RSF attacks, these are not isolated mistakes or collateral damage — they form a systematic pattern that may rise to crimes against humanity or genocide if political intent and methodical targeting are proven.

Reports from human rights organizations — notably Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International — affirm that these incidents are not random. There is a repeated pattern: systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure in areas outside direct RSF control. Since the war began, over 120 attacks on civilian facilities have been documented — including 15 hospitals, 9 displacement camps, and dozens of schools and service centers. In May 2025, international lawyers submitted a legal case to the War Crimes Unit of London’s police, accusing RSF leadership — particularly Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti) — of war crimes and crimes against humanity, based on the principle of command responsibility: holding leaders accountable for acts committed under their orders or with their knowledge.

The continued destruction of Sudan’s civilian infrastructure is not only a humanitarian catastrophe but a threat to regional stability. Mass displacement, service collapse, and the creation of lawless zones could escalate into a crisis that surpasses Sudan’s borders and affects its neighbors and Red Sea security. In the absence of deterrence, a dangerous precedent takes hold: that bombing can become a tool of governance.

The impact goes beyond physical destruction. The deeper damage is psychological and social. Families displaced multiple times, children with no education, communities stripped of health centers and essential services, women left without security or support. What future awaits this new generation — raised only on displacement and airstrikes? Every child without a school signals a looming crisis as dangerous as today’s war. What’s unfolding is not just the destruction of cities or facilities — but of the very cohesion of society. It is the long erosion of any possibility for stability or recovery.

Although some statements have been issued by countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt condemning the targeting of civilian facilities, these have not translated into real action. There is no genuine international pressure or binding measures to stop the violations or hold perpetrators accountable. This indifference fosters a climate of impunity and sends a message: that bombing civilians can proceed without political or legal cost.

Sudan is not the first country where civilians are bombed — but it may be the first whose state is completely dismantled through systematic targeting of its infrastructure without meaningful consequences. If this model is not deterred, it risks becoming a replicable template — not an exception. What we are witnessing is not just an armed conflict — but a full-scale assault on the very idea of the state, and on international norms themselves. In Sudan, it’s not only weapons being tested — but silence as well. And if this silence is not broken, the next crime is not far off.

Perhaps most dangerous of all is that the Sudan model could evolve into an “unspoken template” for other armed groups in future conflicts. If drones can be used against schools, hospitals, and displacement camps without consequences, future battlefields will make no distinction between a military base and a medical center. Civilians will always be the weakest link, and power will reward those with technology — not those who respect the law. The absence of accountability is not just a gap — it is a motive for repetition. If no firm precedent is set in Sudan, these crimes will reappear elsewhere — justified by new excuses.

In this complex scene, vulnerable peoples cannot afford to wait. And the world cannot afford the luxury of silence. If war is measured by the number of dead, peace is measured by those left unharmed, un-displaced, and respected in their humanity — even without weapons. Today, Sudan presents an open test to all who claim to defend international law. And the result… remains unresolved.