Port Sudan strikes: Drone attacks raise stakes in new phase of bloody civil war
Drones have played an increasing role in the conflict, which has entered its third year. The war began as a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF and has drawn in other Sudanese armed groups and foreign backers, plunging the country into what the UN calls the world's worst humanitarian crisis.Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) helped the army advance earlier this year. And the RSF escalated its own use of drones as it was pushed out of central Sudan, especially Khartoum, back towards its traditional stronghold in the west of the country.In recent months the paramilitaries had stepped up drone strikes on critical civilian infrastructure in army-controlled areas, such as dams and power stations.But their sustained attacks on Port Sudan, until now seen as a safe haven home to government officials, diplomats and humanitarian organisations, underlined a shift in strategy to a greater emphasis on remote warfare, and aimed to demonstrate strength.
"The RSF is trying to show that they don't need to reach Port Sudan by land in order to be able to have an impact there," says Sudanese political analyst Kholood Khair.The group is trying to achieve a "narrative shift" away from "the triumphant SAF that took over Khartoum," she says."It is saying to the Sudanese Armed Forces: 'You can take Khartoum back, but you'll never be able to govern it. You can have Port Sudan, but you won't be able to govern it, because we will cause a security crisis for you so large that it will be ungovernable'... They want to unequivocally show that the war is not over until they say so."The paramilitary group has not directly addressed the Port Sudan drone attacks. Rather, it has repeated its assertion that the SAF is supported by Iran and accused the armed forces of targeting civilian infrastructure and state institutions, calling the military strikes on Khartoum and RSF-held areas in the west and south of the country war crimes.Both sides stand accused of war crimes which they have denied, but the RSF has been singled out over allegations of mass rape and genocide.The change in its tactics may have been triggered by battlefield necessity, but is possible because of technological advancement.The RSF had previously used what are known as suicide or loitering drones, small UAVs with explosive payloads that are designed to crash into targets and can carry out coordinated attacks.It seems to have deployed this method in Port Sudan, with the commander of the Red Sea Military Zone Mahjoub Bushra describing a swarm of 11 Kamikaze drones in the first strike on a military airbase. He said the army shot them down, but they turned out to be a tactical distraction to divert attention from a single strategic drone that successfully struck the base.The make of this drone is not clear. But satellite images reported by Yale researchers and the Reuters news agency have shown advanced UAVs at an airport in South Darfur since the beginning of the year. The defence intelligence company Janes has determined them to most likely be sophisticated Chinese manufactured CH-95s, capable of long-range strikes.Jeremy Binnie, an Africa and Middle East analyst at Jane's, told the BBC that photos of what appear to be the remnants of the smaller kamikaze drones suggest they are probably a different version than the RSF had used before, and might be better at penetrating air defences because of their shape.
One regional observer suggested the RSF had been able to breach the SAF's anti-drone technology with signal jammers attached to the drones, but cautioned this was still unproven.The South Darfur airport in Nyala, the presumptive capital and military base of the Rapid Support Forces, has been repeatedly bombed by the SAF, which destroyed an aircraft there earlier this month. Some experts see the RSF's bombardment of Port Sudan at least partly as retaliation.Inside Khartoum, a city left in ruinsSudan war: A simple guide to what is happeningThe escalating drone warfare has again highlighted the role of foreign actors in Sudan's civil conflict."This is a war of technology," says Justin Lynch, managing director at Conflict Insights Group, a data analytics and research organisation. "That's why the foreign supporters are so important, because it's not like the RSF is making the weapons themselves. They're being given this stuff."The army has accused the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of supplying the paramilitary fighters with the drones, and cut diplomatic ties with Abu Dhabi because of the attacks.The UAE has strongly rejected the charges. It has long denied reports from UN experts, US politicians and international organisations that it is providing weaponry to the RSF.But Mr Lynch says the evidence is overwhelming. He was the lead author of a US State Department-funded report late last year that concluded with "near certainty" the the UAE was facilitating weapons to the RSF by monitoring imagery and flight patterns of airlines previously implicated in violating a UN arms embargo. He told the BBC it would be surprising if the Emiratis were not helping deliver the drones used in the Port Sudan attacks.He also determined with similar near-certainty that the Iranians were supplying weapons to the SAF, and he helped authenticate documents provided to the Washington Post that detail the sale of drones and warheads to the army by a Turkish defence firm.Iran has not responded to the allegations. Turkish officials have denied involvement.The increasing use of drones by both sides may be redefining the war, but it is the ability of the RSF to strike strategic targets hundreds of kilometres from its positions that has rattled the region.Over a week of daily attacks on Port Sudan, the paramilitaries hit the country's only working international airport, a power station, several fuel depots, and the air base, apparently trying to disrupt the army's supply lines.The city is also the main entry port for relief supplies and the UN has warned that this "major escalation" could further complicate aid operations in the country and lead to large-scale civilian casualties."This was such a shock and awe campaign that it has not only stunned SAF, I think it's also stunned Egypt, Saudi Arabia, others who were behind SAF, and remakes the entire war," says Mr Boswell, adding that it closing the gap in air power between the RSF and the army."The RSF is widely viewed as a non-state actor," he says "and normally, groups like that can muster quite a bit of an insurgent force. But the government with the air force is the one that always has the aerial capacity, and this just turns all those old adages on its head."
The development has triggered comparisons to the long-range drone warfare between Russia and Ukraine."These weapons have more precision, you don't need a manned aircraft any more, and they are much more affordable than operating sophisticated jets," says Mr Binnie. "This is part of a broader trend in technological proliferation where you can see what used to be really high-end capabilities being used in a civil war in sub-Saharan Africa."The Sudanese foreign ministry has warned that the attacks threaten regional security and the safety of navigation in the Red Sea, calling on international actors to take "effective action against the regional sponsor of the militia," a reference to the UAE.Mr Lynch believes that only an agreement between the UAE and the Sudanese army will end the war."This war is always evolving, always changing," he says, "but you'll see it will continue for years and decades unless there is serious diplomatic action to stop it."
More about Sudan's civil war from the BBC:
WATCH: 'They ransacked my home, and left my town in ruins'The children living between starvation and deathBBC reporter: My heartbreaking decision to leave Sudan
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
15 hours ago
- The Guardian
Influential women urge inclusion of asylum seekers in Labour plans to tackle violence
More than 50 influential women, including actors, authors and comedians, have warned in a letter to the government against the risk of creating a 'two-tier' system to tackle violence against women and girls if tens of thousands of female asylum seekers are left out. Labour has pledged to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade and is due to publish its strategy in September. According to research from the charity Women For Refugee Women, which coordinated the letter, more than 85% of female asylum seekers have been raped or tortured. They are a particularly vulnerable group, who have often suffered violence in the home countries they have fled from and on their journeys seeking safety. Signatories of the letter include Cherie Blair KC, Elif Shafak, Ali Smith, Juliet Stevenson, Laura Whitmore, Zoë Wanamaker, Rosie Jones and the former Green party leader Caroline Lucas. Their message to the government is that violence does not stop at the border. But they warn serious gaps in the UK's asylum process leave many retraumatised by a system exposes them to further harm. They are calling for: Fast-tracking asylum claims for women from high grant-rate countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea. Reforming asylum accommodation so women have somewhere safe to call home. Lifting the ban on work for women seeking asylum to prevent further exploitation and harm. The letter states the government's commitment to halving the rate of violence against women within the next decade is unachievable unless it includes women seeking safety in the UK. It adds that without action the government risks creating a two-tier system, with women seeking asylum treated as less deserving and left behind. 'The government is right to say that violence against women is a national emergency. But this national emergency cannot be tackled without including all women – including those who have sought safety here. Violence doesn't stop at the border and neither should our compassion and support for survivors,' the letter says. Blair said: 'We must create a country and a world where all women and girls are protected from gender-based violence. Women and girls who seek asylum in the UK often do so because they want a life that's free from violence and abuse. The UK government needs to consider their needs as they seek to tackle violence against women and girls and create a safer, more peaceful country for all.' Whitmore said: 'I am proud to have signed this letter to urge the government to include all women – including those seeking asylum here – in its commitment to tackle violence against women. No woman should be left behind when it comes to protection from violence.' The Home Office declined to respond directly to the calls made in the letter for a commitment to include asylum-seeker women and girls in its new strategy. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The scale of violence and abuse suffered by women and girls in this country is nothing less than a national emergency. That's why we have pledged to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. 'We have taken immediate action to increase protection against vile perpetrators. This includes launching a new national centre for violence against women and girls and public protection, Raneem's law, which puts domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms, and new domestic abuse protection orders. 'We will set out further plans in a new, transformative strategy to halve violence against women and girls, which we aim to publish in September.'
The Guardian
21 hours ago
- The Guardian
From Gaza to Ukraine, peace always seems just out of reach – and the reason isn't only political
The quest for peace in major conflicts has rarely been so desperate and so seemingly futile. In Gaza, talk of ceasefires, truces and pauses typically ends in tears. In Ukraine, the war is now well into its fourth year with no end in sight, despite Donald Trump's new 50-day deadline. Syria burns anew. Sudan's horrors never cease. Last year, state-based conflicts reached a peak – 61 across 36 countries. It was the highest recorded total since 1946. This year could be worse. The sheer scale and depravity of war crimes and other conflict-zone atrocities is extraordinary. The deliberate, illegal targeting and terrorising of civilians, the killing, maiming and abduction of children, and the use of starvation, sexual violence, torture and forced displacement as weapons of war have grown almost routine. Israel's killing last week of children queueing for water in Gaza was shocking, made doubly so by the fact that scenes like this have become so commonplace. 'Blessed are the peacemakers,' said Saint Matthew, but today, impartial mediators are in wickedly short supply. Surely everyone agrees: murdering and massacring innocents is morally indefensible. So why on earth is it allowed to continue? This same question is shouted out loud by grief-stricken parents in Rafah, Kyiv and Darfur, by UN relief workers, in pulpits, pubs and parliaments, in street protests and at Glastonbury. Why? WHY? The curse of moral relativism provides a clue. The fact is, not everyone does agree. What is absolutely morally indefensible to one group of people is relatively permissible or justifiable to another. This has held true throughout human history. Yet today's geopolitically and economically divided world is also ethically and morally fractured to a possibly unparalleled degree. Agreed, observed standards – what the American writer David Brooks terms a 'permanent moral order' – are lacking. The collapse of the international rules-based order is mirrored by this crisis of the moral order. Without accepted universal principles, the peaceful settlement of conflicts, foreign or domestic, becomes highly problematic. 'We have no objective standard by which to determine that one view is right and another view is wrong. So public arguments just go on indefinitely, at greater levels of indignation and polarisation,' Brooks argues. What's left is coercion and manipulation. No individual better personifies the moral-relativist confusion permeating contemporary life than Trump, the master coercer and manipulator. He believes, for example, that he deserves the 2025 Nobel peace prize. Yet Trump, in collusion with Israel, did bomb Iran recently, and killed numerous civilians. In his morally muddled view, that illegal act of aggression was justified because it restored the peace he had just broken. In a world wedded to war, Alfred Nobel's venerable peace prize looks increasingly anachronistic – and politicised. Barack Obama won it in 2009 for doing nothing. If only Trump would do nothing for the next four years. Worse, he has been nominated by Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, arch foe to peace and morality. It might be preferable to replace the prize with a Warlord of the Year award – and put a bounty on the winner's head. Making a moral case for peace can be confusing, even controversial; ask any church or mosque leader. For many people, it seems, morality is a dirty word these days. It's fungible, negotiable and emotive – a matter primarily of individual choice and cultural belonging, not of duty, obligation or fidelity to a higher law. How else to explain why so many Americans turn a blind eye to Trump's astounding moral turpitude, illustrated again by the Jeffrey Epstein affair? Social identity trumps social conscience. Much of the Russian public suffers from a similarly chronic moral deficiency when contemplating Vladimir Putin's devastation of Ukraine. Intimidated dissenters avoid the subject. Others believe the disinformation fairytales spun by regime-controlled media. The majority inhabits a state of profound ignorance about the crimes committed in their name. When it's over, Russians may claim, like Germans in 1945, that they didn't know. Amorality is mitigated by mendacity. Israel's denial of peace in Palestine also comes at a high moral cost. Its reputation is in shreds, its prime minister has an arrest warrant issued against him for war crimes. Antisemitism is surging internationally as a direct result. How can so many Israelis live with their army's Gaza rampage, with the spectre of 58,000 corpses? Some say it would all stop if only the last hostages were freed; others that all Palestinians are Hamas. Some on the far right, forgetting their country's history, suggest the idea of a Palestinian nation is fiction. They want all 2 million of Gaza's residents caged in one huge concentration camp. Many Israelis passionately disagree. They desire peace. Their failure to force a change in government policy is moral as well as political. Also at fault are Americans, Russians and all in Britain and Europe, politicians and the public, who fail to speak out, who look the other way, who excuse the inexcusable for reasons of state or personal comfort – or who claim that murder and mayhem, wherever they occur, are relatively morally tolerable if committed, as argued by Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the prosecution of a 'just war'. This very modern failure, this retreat into subjective, made-to-measure morality, this renunciation of shared responsibility, is reversible. Universal ethical standards still apply. They are defined by the Geneva conventions, by other secular instruments of international law, through religious faith and through the social contract. They should be respected and strengthened. They are necessary, sometimes inconvenient truths. Ordinary people in ordinary times may pick and choose their moral battles. But ending major conflicts, and easing the suffering of millions, is a moral imperative that demands a determined collective response from all concerned. That way lies peace. That way lies salvation. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
The Guardian
4 days ago
- The Guardian
Will Mike Waltz lead a ‘full-frontal assault' on the UN?
When and if Donald Trump's nominee for ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, takes up the post, many are concerned that in his pursuit of the rehabilitation of his image, global development will not be a priority. Diplomats work for decades to be considered for the coveted position of ambassador, but in this case the role is a consolation prize for the 51-year-old former army colonel from Florida, says Richard Gowan, UN director of International Crisis Group. Gowan believes Waltz will be 'very performative' as he attempts to rebuild his political brand after the scandal of reportedly adding a journalist to a Signal chat that contained sensitive information on planned military strikes in Yemen. He will have to follow the line coming from Washington, says Gowan. 'There is a history of American politicians using the UN as a way to burnish their domestic credentials.' Global development professionals are concerned about what a hawkish Republican wanting to regain favour post-scandal could mean for the UN at a time when Trump is already causing significant damage to aid and development work. In a Senate confirmation hearing this week, Waltz said he would push for transparency and reforms within the UN while pursuing an 'America first' agenda that would see the US ensuring 'that every foreign aid dollar and every contribution to an international organisation, particularly the UN, draws a straight and direct line to a compelling US national interest'. Since January, the US has withdrawn its funding from several UN agencies, called for reviews of its involvement in all UN treaties and stopped engaging with the UN human rights council. Simultaneously, it has dismantled much of its own USAID agency. The US has historically been the largest donor to the UN. 'This has put the UN in a huge financial crisis,' says Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch, adding that it compromises humanitarian and human rights work globally. The appointment could also jeopardise global targets such as the sustainable development goals, says Beth Schlachter, senior director of US external relations at the family planning non-profit MSI Reproductive Choices. The Trump administration has denounced the goals as 'adverse to the rights and interests of Americans', and Schlachter believes its anti-rights stance influenced the omission of sexual and reproductive health rights from a UN political declaration on the human rights of women and girls this year. 'How is there an agreement on women's issues if you don't agree to include that?' she asks. There was once consensus among member states on foundational UN agreements, and disagreements were about new additions, but now, led by the US, the basics can't even be agreed upon, says Schlachter. With that in mind, the US is 'staffing themselves to be able to pull things down', she says. Waltz, who was vocal in his support for the 2022 Dobbs decision which upended Roe v Wade, limiting a woman's right to an abortion in the US, and questioned the UN's work on climate change at this week's hearing, is of particular concern. Many UN projects focus on providing access to sexual health and reproductive rights and combatting the impact of global warming. He has, however, also shown support for human rights. In 2021, he was among the first members of Congress to call for the US to boycott the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics in protest at China's treatment of the Uyghur ethnic minority group. He told the Senate that the US needs a strong voice to counter China and if he is able to take a strong stance on China's abuse of human rights and push these issues at the UN, that would be great, says Charbonneau. In New York, UN officials and diplomats are simply happy at the prospect of the role being filled, says Gowan. It has been vacant since Trump took office in January. 'And there's been no real political representative of the White House here that other countries can bargain with … [or] who represents Trump that [António] Guterres can talk to,' he says. But that doesn't stop experts fearing that at the annual UN general assembly in September, Waltz will lead 'an incredibly damaging full-frontal assault on the UN, its legitimacy as an organisation and the specific things that they don't like – clearly everything related to women', says Schlachter.
