In a conflict as long and devastating as Sudan’s, optics are important, perhaps especially so when the conflict has its roots in a split between forces who once fought alongside each other.
The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), whilst losing ground in other parts of the country, regained the capital Khartoum earlier this year and plan to operate their non-elected government from there by October 2025.
They are making much of the symbolism of their cabinet being based in the capital city by this autumn. Prime Minister Kamil Idris is endeavouring to position himself on the international stage, hoping to be seen as a legitimate leader of Sudan. Yet just behind him lurk the SAF war chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan Abdelrahman al-Burhan, and the Islamist groups he relies upon, as well as continuous allegations of SAF war crimes.
The imagery of the SAF’s top officials, Malik Agar, the Deputy Chairman of the Sovereign Council, and Lieutenant General Shams al-Din Kabbashi, the Deputy Commander of the Army, visiting Khartoum to evaluate security and infrastructure repairs, was designed to show that they are intent on ending their 16-month exile in Port Sudan.
Their visit followed claims that they will be fully installed as a government in Khartoum by October. The SAF cabinet held its first meeting in the capital on Tuesday 26 August. Chaired by Prime Minister Kamel Idris, the meeting took place at the headquarters of the Khartoum state government. State news agency SUNA described it as a “symbolic step toward the return of state institutions to the capital,” amid ongoing security efforts.
However, as the SAF attempts to project this symbolism, both in Sudan and beyond, the reality is somewhat different. Kamil Idris might have been on a call with the UN Secretary-General António Guterres this week, but the United Nations and many other voices from the international community are more than aware of the conduct of the SAF over the past two years.
The United States has imposed sanctions on the SAF for their use of chemical weapons, the details of which were documented further by the New York Times. The BBC reported this month on the SAF torturing people to death. Amnesty International has reported on SAF airstrikes on civilians, including a crowded market in Kabkabiya in North Darfur.Widespread summary executions of civilians in Khartoum following its recapture by SAF were condemned by UN human rights chief Volker Türk.
Intertwined with these allegations against the SAF are international concerns about their heavy reliance on Islamist allies. Reuters spoke with three senior military sources who explained that thousands of men fighting alongside the SAF worked as intelligence operatives under former president Omar al-Bashir and have ties to his Islamist movement are.
The links between these Islamist forces and the SAF were more than visible when the SAF took the Republican Palace in the capital, Khartoum. The Al-Baraa Bin Malik Brigade’s leader Misbah Abu Zeid Talha could not be missed in the victory scenes when the SAF took Khartoum. Al-Qaeda have made their Sudanese ambitions clear, with Abu Hudhaifa al-Sudani, a senior Al-Qaeda leader with historic ties to both Sudan and Bin Laden, published a manifesto calling for jihad in Sudan and for a Khartoum command centre that would oversee military attacks from Dongola in the north to Darfur in the south.
Certainly Sudan’s strategic location bridging North and sub-Saharan Africa, and its resources, make it irresistible for Islamist forces looking to find footholds and launch attacks. The SAF’s reliance upon such forces cannot be overlooked by the international community.
Another factor undermining any appearance Idris, Burhan and the SAF may have of legitimacy is their total resistance to any form of peace-making. There had been a morsel of hope in Switzerland when Burhan met with US envoy Massad Boulos on 11 August 2025. However Burhan publicly ruled out any compromise or reconciliation, insisting instead on a military victory for the SAF, a “battle for dignity, to defeat the rebellion, and to make neither compromise nor reconciliation, whatever the cost”. For international observers, this was no surprise, after a catalogue of no-shows and refusals by the SAF to negotiate peace.
Symbolic gestures such as a cabinet meeting in Khartoum only go so far, when the evidence points to SAF war crimes against civilians, reliance on Islamist allies and a refusal to engage in any peace-making.
———-
First published in this link of The European Times.
