Abstract

This article highlights the geopolitical shift in Sudan following the civil conflict in April 2023. Historically, Western nations like the U.S., EU, and UK were pivotal in mediating Sudanese conflicts, as seen in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). However, recent global crises, such as the Ukraine war and Middle Eastern conflicts, have diverted Western attention, leading to their reduced engagement in Sudan. This absence created a power vacuum, filled by regional actors like Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, driven by strategic interests in controlling key resources such as the Nile and Red Sea. Non-regional actors like Russia and China have also expanded their involvement, with Russia’s military presence through the Wagner Group and China focusing on economic investments. The West’s retreat raises concerns about Sudan’s future, with some viewing this shift as a path to regional peace efforts, while others fear the entrenchment of competing interests could exacerbate instability. This absence of Western diplomacy undermines peace-building, with potential implications for Sudan’s neighbors, including South Sudan and Chad. This paper is underscored by the assumption that all
foreign policy actions are inherently interest-driven. Whether Western or non-Western, interventions in conflicts are rarely, if ever, purely altruistic. They are instead motivated by underlying geopolitical objectives, such as securing access to natural resources, expanding spheres of influence, or gaining strategic advantages. This framework applies universally, suggesting that state actors prioritize their national interests, using diplomatic, economic, or military means to further their goals. Consequently, both Western and non-Western interventions in conflicts are often shaped by these pragmatic considerations rather than humanitarian concerns alone.