Why Genocide Keeps Recurring in Sudan

Amid a 40-month civil war between Sudan's army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia, the central Sudanese city of el-Obeid is emerging as a new flashpoint, with UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk issuing a “red alert” about the situation there last month. El-Obeid, a vital commercial hub and logistics node, could face the next wave of genocidal violence, as more than 14 million people have already been displaced and over half of Sudan's 50 million population depends on humanitarian aid.

In June, the RSF launched 27 drone attacks on el-Obeid, the highest monthly number since the conflict began, mainly targeting fuel depots, water pumping stations, and the power grid, making life for the city's 500,000 residents increasingly difficult. Many escape routes out of the city have been blocked by the RSF, while the rainy season has made other roads impassable.

This scenario has played out in other cities before. Last year, the RSF besieged el-Fasher in North Darfur, killing more than 6,000 civilians in a matter of days, in addition to thousands more who were tortured, raped, or forcibly disappeared. A UN investigation published last month concluded that the RSF's crimes there constituted genocide, yet no serious action followed.

Earlier, in the first months of the conflict, as the RSF expanded control in Darfur, civilians in el-Geneina in West Darfur suffered what the UN called genocide, as the paramilitary group blocked humanitarian aid and prevented civilians from fleeing. In January 2025, then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also declared it a genocide.

History shows that hopes for an international response often fail to materialize. In 1994, the US acknowledged “acts of genocide” occurring in Rwanda but took no significant action, famously prompting Secretary of State Warren Christopher's question: “How many acts of genocide constitute a genocide?” Later, concepts like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) emerged, but more than two decades on, the crime has recurred in Sudan, now as “genocides” in the plural.

One of the greatest tragedies is that there has been no call for an international coalition to intervene militarily to stop the violence. Powers like the US and the EU view Sudan as too distant and not directly tied to their strategic interests, while countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE continue to sell weapons and mine gold that sustain the conflict. The G7 recently only condemned the RSF's shelling without proposing any concrete action.

Analysts point to a paradox: genocide tragedies persist because no one believes preventing genocide is a national interest. The question becomes “how many more genocides are needed for genocide prevention to become a national interest?”