Editorial: Why RSF cannot be an alternative to the Sudanese army

EDITORIAL, APRIL 20, 2023 (SUDANS POST) – The Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have been in the news of late, and not for good reasons. With the Sudanese people hoping for radical change after the ouster of former President Omar al-Bashir in 2019, their dreams were crushed last weekend when the two forces emerged in deadly fighting in the capital Khartoum.

The fighting between the two forces resulted in the destruction of key infrastructure in the capital Khartoum, displacement of thousands to the states, killing of hundreds of civilians, and jeopardized health access as dozens of hospitals have been forced off service since the start of the fighting.

There are also reports that some countries are diving in to support the RSF as an alternative to the Sudanese army.

While the army stands responsible for heinous crimes it committed in Darfur and the Nuba Mountains, the RSF’s role in the recent events in the capital Khartoum after its refusal for integration into the army speaks volumes of its intentions.

Despite the army’s checkered past, the RSF cannot be a sustainable alternative to the SAF.

SAF is a well-established military force that has been in service for many decades. Although it has had many challenges, it has a credible military infrastructure, rules, and regulations that govern its members’ behavior.

While it is true that there have been credible allegations of war crimes committed by the SAF in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan, justice must be served. However, the SAF’s checkered past in no way justifies the RSF as an alternative.

The RSF, on the other hand, is a relatively new paramilitary force that emerged from the infamous Janjaweed militias that wrought havoc in Darfur in the early 2000s. While the RSF might have played a pivotal role in containing the Darfur rebellion and other conflicts in Sudan, it has not yet proved its credibility as a national military force. The idea of the RSF serving as a long-term alternative to the SAF is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.

One of the reasons why the RSF is viewed with suspicion is the role it played in the massacre of more than 100 people in front of the army headquarters in Khartoum in June 2019. This was a clear indication of the RSF’s intentions for power.

Furthermore, the RSF’s lack of experience in running a national military and its worrying human rights record are clear indications that it cannot be trusted. There have been credible reports of human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, and the persecution of minorities, among others.

With such a track record, entrusting the RSF with the responsibility of protecting the citizens of Sudan is the last thing anyone should consider.

The SAF, in contrast, has established protocols for accountability, integrity, and discipline, all of which are critical attributes of any credible military force. While the SAF must be held accountable for any accusations of war crimes it is worth noting that it has made substantial commitment to commit to the idea of a civil rule which is a credible step for a viable Sudanese state.

In conclusion, Sudanese citizens deserve a military force that is accountable, disciplined and respects the rule of law, human rights, and democracy. While the SAF might have a checkered past, it is a well-established institution with a clear chain of command and established protocols.

The RSF, on the other hand, is a new paramilitary force that emerged from a terrorist organization, has a worrying track record on human rights, and played a central role in the ongoing deadly war in Khartoum which emerged out of its refusal to be integrated into the army in two years’ time.

Therefore, it cannot be an alternative to the SAF. The international community, Sudanese citizens, and stakeholders must continue to support efforts towards building a national military force that meets the aspirations of all Sudanese citizens.