How Some Influential Americans View the Conflict in Darfur: “A New Battle on an Old Front”
Sudan Events – Agencies
Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Declan Walsh of The New York Times published on Monday a vivid report focusing on the situation in Darfur, particularly in the city of El-Fasher.
As one of the most influential American correspondents on African affairs, Walsh’s writings — amplified by The New York Times’ reach among U.S. policymakers and opinion leaders — are often seen as indicators of elite thinking within the American establishment.
Walsh wrote that “since the fall of the Sudanese city of El-Fasher to a paramilitary force last week, documented images and witness accounts have pointed to a series of massacres in Darfur — a grim encapsulation of how many Americans now perceive the conflict.”
He described how “civilians were shot as they tried to flee the city, while videos show paramilitary fighters executing people with chilling indifference. Those who managed to escape to a nearby town, some 65 kilometers away, told harrowing stories of terror, hunger, and death.”
Two decades ago, the word “Darfur” became a global synonym for unchecked atrocities in a distant land. Today, Walsh wrote, that tragic narrative is repeating itself: a new wave of killings sweeping one of the region’s largest cities, with the same ethnic rivalries once again fueling the chaos.
The paramilitary forces unleashing terror today trace their roots to the Janjaweed — predominantly Arab militias that spread fear across Darfur twenty years ago.
This time, however, there is little of the global pressure that once galvanized Western activism. The celebrity-driven outrage of the early 2000s has all but vanished, replaced by indifference and impunity.
Then and Now
Walsh draws sharp comparisons between past and present:
“The fighters ravaging Darfur today are better armed, better organized, and better financed than ever before,” he wrote. They are reportedly backed by one of the region’s richest nations — the United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. ally. (The UAE has denied supporting either side of the war.)
In the past, fighters rode horses and camels. Today, they operate armored vehicles and pickup trucks, deploy heavy artillery, and fly sophisticated drones.
During the first Darfur war, the militias fought alongside Sudan’s army. This time, the paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) is fighting against the national army — in a war that has torn Sudan apart and triggered what many describe as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
The civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF erupted in April 2023, driven partly by the political ambitions of RSF commander General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti).
Although Hemedti has announced a rival government in South Darfur, it has received no recognition and has been explicitly rejected by the UN Security Council, the African Union, and Western governments alike.
RSF forces have committed atrocities classified by the United Nations as war crimes and by the Biden administration as acts of genocide, frequently targeting members of the Zaghawa ethnic group. UN reports also describe widespread sexual violence.
Until recently, El-Fasher was the last major city in Darfur not under RSF control. A small contingent of Sudanese soldiers and allied Darfuri factions had been holding out near the airport — their final stronghold.
As RSF tightened its siege, the militia built an earthen barrier encircling the city, trapping about 250,000 civilians inside. Civilians caught smuggling food or medicine across the berm were beaten or killed. Hunger spread rapidly.
At the city’s only functioning hospital, doctors resorted to feeding malnourished children with animal fodder (cottonseed meal).
Michelle Gavin, Senior Fellow for Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said:
“Everyone knew what would happen once El-Fasher fell — beyond the horrors of the siege itself, the RSF would commit massacres.”
Limited Outrage
Twenty years ago, Darfur became a global cause célèbre, championed by figures such as George Clooney, and ranked high on President George W. Bush’s foreign policy agenda. It even sparked diplomatic friction with China, then heavily invested in Sudan’s oil sector.
This time, however, international reaction has been muted. The latest atrocities have drawn condemnation mainly from formal political circles — the UN Security Council, a few members of U.S. Congress, and scattered officials elsewhere.
A special adviser to former President Donald Trump on African affairs has been attempting to mediate a ceasefire, but progress has been minimal.
Part of the reason, Walsh noted, is that mediators include diplomats from the UAE, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — the same regional powers accused of fueling the conflict.
Despite the U.S. labeling the RSF’s campaign as genocide, few American officials have openly criticized the UAE’s alleged role.
As analyst Michelle Gavin put it:
“The UAE is arming and backing a genocidal force — yet there is an absolute unwillingness to acknowledge it.”
